First Language http://fla.sagepub.com
Children’s production and comprehension of politeness in requests: Relationships to behavioural adjustment, temperament and empathy Robert Pedlow, Ann Sanson and Roger Wales First Language 2004; 24; 347 DOI: 10.1177/0142723704046188 The online version of this article can be found at: http://fla.sagepub.com/cgi/content/abstract/24/3/347
Published by: http://www.sagepublications.com
Additional services and information for First Language can be found at: Email Alerts: http://fla.sagepub.com/cgi/alerts Subscriptions: http://fla.sagepub.com/subscriptions Reprints: http://www.sagepub.com/journalsReprints.nav Permissions: http://www.sagepub.com/journalsPermissions.nav Citations (this article cites 13 articles hosted on the SAGE Journals Online and HighWire Press platforms): http://fla.sagepub.com/cgi/content/refs/24/3/347
Downloaded from http://fla.sagepub.com at PENNSYLVANIA STATE UNIV on April 14, 2008 © 2004 SAGE Publications. All rights reserved. Not for commercial use or unauthorized distribution.
24(3) Pedlow
8/31/04
3:54 PM
Page 1
ARTICLE
FIRST LANGUAGE Copyright © 2004 SAGE Publications (London, Thousand Oaks, CA and New Delhi) www.sagepublications.com Vol 24(3): 347-367 (200410) DO1: 10.1177/0142723704046188
Children’s production and comprehension of politeness in requests: Relationships to behavioural adjustment, temperament and empathy Robert Pedlow,1 Telstra Research Laboratories, Australia Ann Sanson, Australian Institute of Family Studies Roger Wales, Latrobe University ABSTRACT This study investigated the relationships of children’s behavioural adjustment, temperamental approach tendencies and empathy to their ability to produce and comprehend one aspect of politeness (namely level of directness) in requests, in a sample of 100 ten-and-a-half-year-old children from the Australian Temperament Project (ATP) population. The study showed that high levels of anxious fearful behaviour problems increased the likelihood of producing less direct requests to more powerful others while high levels of approaching temperament increased the likelihood of producing less direct requests to more distant others. High levels of hostile aggressive behaviour problems increased the likelihood of producing direct requests to more distant others. By comparison high levels of approaching temperament, empathy and social anxiety increased the likelihood of children judging more direct requests to more powerful others to be effective. The findings supported the view that individual differences are related to children’s use of directness in response to variation in the social context of request situations. KEYWORDS Children’s adjustment; children’s requests; everyday politeness; individual differences; linguistic politeness; pragmatic development Downloaded from http://fla.sagepub.com at PENNSYLVANIA STATE UNIV on April 14, 2008 © 2004 SAGE Publications. All rights reserved. Not for commercial use or unauthorized distribution.
24(3) Pedlow
8/31/04
FIRST LANGUAGE
3:54 PM
Page 2
VOLUME 24 ISSUE 3
INTRODUCTION This study investigated the relationships between individual differences in 10-year-old children’s behavioural adjustment, empathy and temperament, and their ability to produce and comprehend politeness in requests. Most research on children’s politeness has followed the broad approach to linguistic politeness outlined by Brown & Levinson (1978, 1987). Their face-saving model viewed linguistic politeness as a means for the strategic avoidance of conflict in social interactions. However Watts, Ide & Ehlich (1990) noted that this view of politeness does not match the everyday usage of politeness. Watts et al. (1990) distinguished between first-order or everyday politeness and second-order or theoretical models of politeness. Fraser (1990) proposed a definition of first-order politeness as a social norm or socially acceptable way of speaking, stating that ‘there are standards of behaviour in society and in any age by which the speaker is deemed to have spoken correctly or not’ (p. 223). For the current research, everyday politeness was defined in terms of children’s understanding of what it means to ask in a polite, rude or usual way. This is likely to be a familiar concept to children as a result of parental socialization in politeness (Becker, 1990). The overall objective of this research was to explore two alternative pathways for the relationship between children’s non-linguistic social and behavioural adjustment and their linguistic politeness skills. The first was that children’s non-linguistic social and behavioural adjustment predicts their ability to produce and distinguish between request forms that differ in terms of everyday or commonly understood politeness; and the second was that these individual differences predict their ability to skillfully vary the request forms they produce in response to the differences in the social context and their understanding of the effectiveness of different request forms in different social contexts. In other words, the two options investigated in this study were that children with generally less favourable social and behavioural adjustment might have a reduced set of request strategies compared with better adjusted children or that these children might have a comparable set of request strategies but be less adept at relating the different request strategies to variation in the social context of the request situation. Children’s production and comprehension of polite forms of language has received considerable research attention (see review by Snow, Perlman, Gleason & Hooshyar, 1990; see also: Baroni & Axia, 1989; Bates, 1983; Ervin-Tripp, 1976, 1977). The development of requesting is an area of politeness that has received this attention, because any speech act that has clear interactive consequences may be seen as a request for a response of a certain kind (Labov & Fanshel, 1977: 93). Thus, the handling of requests is a key aspect of conversational competence, particularly in a developmental context where the child speaker is frequently at a power disadvantage compared with the hearer. Further, according to Labov & Fanshel (1977), many of these requests are employed to accomplish other purposes, which strongly affect the social and emotional relations of the persons involved. Thus, requests have been identified as having a significant social-interactional role. According to Brown & Levinson (1978, 1987), politeness is a function of both the linguistic form and the relationship between the speaker (S) and hearer (H). Brown 348
Downloaded from http://fla.sagepub.com at PENNSYLVANIA STATE UNIV on April 14, 2008 © 2004 SAGE Publications. All rights reserved. Not for commercial use or unauthorized distribution.
24(3) Pedlow
8/31/04
3:54 PM
Page 3
PEDLOW ET AL.: PREDICTORS OF CHILDREN’S POLITENESS
and Levinson distinguished three aspects of the relationship, namely power (P), distance (D) and rank (R, meaning the degree of imposition of the request on the hearer). They identified a number of linguistic forms, including indirectness, that could be used to mitigate the extent to which a request threatened the other’s face. In different contexts the same linguistic form will convey varying levels of politeness, e.g., an unnecessary level of indirectness between equals or intimates may convey sarcasm. Hence, Brown and Levinson’s theory predicts a specific interaction between social context dimensions and the use of face redress strategies, i.e., that more-face redressive strategies should be used when making requests to others who are more powerful or more distant or both, and when making requests that are more imposing. Further, Brown and Levinson’s theory makes a strong claim that this should be a universal aspect of verbal interaction (Brown & Levinson, 1987: 64). The current research explored the possibility that this interaction may vary with some individual differences. A number of researchers have investigated children’s use and understanding of politeness in requests. Studies by Blum-Kulka (1990) and Snow et al. (1990) of children’s use of requests in family settings suggest that, for children, a high level of directness is considered polite or at least not impolite when directed towards older, more powerful others within the family. Becker (1986) reported that 10-year-olds use a variety of features to distinguish ‘nice’ vs. ‘bossy’ requests. The features that they used to distinguish ‘nice’ vs. ‘bossy’ requests included grammatical form (i.e., use of indirectness), use of ‘please’, and request for objects (i.e., requests for action were more likely to be considered ‘bossy’). Becker also found that children judged as ‘bossy’ any direct requests from low status others. Garton & Pratt (1990) found that 8- to 12-year-old children’s ratings of the politeness, effectiveness and likelihood of use of different request forms were highly correlated with effectiveness except when the child was addressing another child of the same age. They also found that children did not differentiate between hearers based on age, i.e., their ratings did not vary with the age of the intended hearer when the hearer was a child. They found, however, that politeness and effectiveness were highly correlated when the intended hearer was an adult of higher status, such as a teacher. There has been surprisingly little research directly investigating the association between social behaviour and linguistic politeness (Tomasello, 1992). Robinson’s work on mothers’ answers to children’s questions looked at the ways in which mothers socialized children in the use of different linguistic forms and variations with respect to social class (Robinson, 1974). The act of requesting has been identified as a key element of linguistic interactions (Labov & Fanshel, 1977) and one with important social interactional implications. Further, the ability to use requests appropriately in social interactions represents an important sociolinguistic skill that children must acquire (Becker, 1986). Camras, Pristo & Brown (1985) showed that children attribute significantly less polite request forms to angry speakers than those that they attribute to happy or neutral speakers. This suggests that children understand the relationship between request style and the affective relationship between participants, and it provides some evidence of a direct linkage between request style and broader aspects of social interaction. This suggests that it may be important to explore the ways in which children with different levels of social adjustment vary their requests to mark the different aspects of linguistic politeness in their interactions. Most of the research on children’s politeness has followed the broad approach to Downloaded from http://fla.sagepub.com at PENNSYLVANIA STATE UNIV on April 14, 2008 © 2004 SAGE Publications. All rights reserved. Not for commercial use or unauthorized distribution.
349
24(3) Pedlow
8/31/04
FIRST LANGUAGE
3:54 PM
Page 4
VOLUME 24 ISSUE 3
linguistic politeness outlined by Brown & Levinson (1978, 1987). Their face-saving model viewed linguistic politeness as a means for the strategic avoidance of conflict in social interactions. However, Watts et al. (1990) noted that this view of politeness does not match the ‘everyday’ usage of politeness. Linguistic politeness, in common with many other theoretical constructs in psychology, e.g., intelligence, began as a lay concept that has been refined and elaborated into a theoretical construct (Ide, 1989). The everyday usage of politeness refers to a socially acceptable or normative way of speaking (Fraser, 1990). Watts et al. (1990) noted that researchers on politeness have barely addressed the distinction between what they refer to as first-order politeness, i.e., the everyday sense of the term, and second-order or theoretical models of politeness. The difference between these two senses of politeness is of particular interest in the study of children’s politeness since there is evidence that parents explicitly teach and are concerned about their children speaking politely. However, most of what parents teach explicitly seems to relate to the use of particular everyday forms, e.g., saying ‘please’ and ‘thank you’ (Becker & Smenner, 1986; see also Gleason, Perlman & Blank, 1984). This finding suggests that much of children’s exposure to direct socialization in politeness may be around everyday politeness rather than politeness as a means of conflict avoidance in social interactions. Only two studies were located which directly investigated the production and comprehension of linguistic politeness by children with different levels of social adjustment. Bates & Silvern (1977) looked at the relationship between IQ, social adjustment and the comprehension and production of polite speech in preschool children. For each child they administered the Peabody Picture Vocabulary Test, obtained teacher ratings of social adjustment and tested production and comprehension of polite speech in a game situation. The game required children to ‘ask’ a hand puppet politely (production) or to decide which of two hand puppets ‘asked’ the most politely (comprehension). Bates and Silvern found that comprehension of politeness was significantly related to individual differences in social adjustment but that production was not. They concluded that the comprehension of politeness indices and the teacher ratings of social adjustment were tapping a common underlying difference in the children’s social sensitivity. Becker, Whittaker & Gesten (1992) investigated requests and re-requests in normal and emotionally disturbed children. The study took place in a school and involved the experimenter and an assistant to whom the child was asked to make a request. A key finding was that requests by the emotionally disturbed group did not differ from requests by the normal comparison group on either degree of directness or use of semantic softeners or aggravators. A couple of issues need to be noted regarding this study. First, the emotionally disturbed group comprised a heterogeneous group of children who are likely to have had a range of behavioural adjustment problems of varying severity. Second, the authors note that the situation used did not generate a wide range of variation in the requesting strategies produced. Overall, the experimenters commented that it would be premature to conclude that children’s choice of an appropriate request is unrelated to their social competence. The data set used in the current research addressed the methodological issues in the study by Becker et al. (1992) by using groups of children with well-defined behavioural problems and presenting a range of request situations (Pedlow, Wales & Sanson, 2001). 350
Downloaded from http://fla.sagepub.com at PENNSYLVANIA STATE UNIV on April 14, 2008 © 2004 SAGE Publications. All rights reserved. Not for commercial use or unauthorized distribution.
24(3) Pedlow
8/31/04
3:54 PM
Page 5
PEDLOW ET AL.: PREDICTORS OF CHILDREN’S POLITENESS
At a theoretical level, the capacity for empathy appears to be implicated in an individual’s ability to use politeness in social interactions. Research on conversational interactions in clinical settings, for example, has emphasized the importance of empathy through the therapist’s use of language (Condon, 1984). Further, Brown (1988) described politeness as the ability to take account of the feelings of the other, a notion that is that is conceptually very close to the concept of empathy. There is a significant body of research in individual differences suggesting that children with aggressive behaviour problems show lower levels of empathy compared with children without behaviour problems (Feshbach, 1978; Eisenberg & Fabes, 1990). Bates, Bretherton & Snyder (1988) reported finding a consistent modest association in a group of young toddlers (mean age 20 months) between sociable temperament and a wide range of objective measures of the child’s verbal output. Temperament is defined as the child’s style of behaviour (rather than its content) and was measured in the Bates et al. (1988) study by the Rowe and Plomin temperament inventory (Plomin, 1983). The sociability subscale reflected the tendency to approach new situations and new people. More sociable or approaching children tend to interact more easily with others including unfamiliar others. This suggests that these children may gain a broader experience of social interaction, potentially resulting in more effective politeness skills. The present study re-analysed data on children’s production and comprehension of politeness in requests (see Pedlow et al., 2001) in conjunction with additional data from the ATP dataset. The objective of the study was to explore two alternatives with regard to the relationship between children’s social behaviour and their production and comprehension of politeness in requests. The first alternative was that behavioural adjustment is related to children’s knowledge of and ability to distinguish between request forms of different levels of directness. The second was that behavioural adjustment is related to children’s ability to understand the differential effectiveness of different levels of directness appropriately in response to the social context of the request situation. If the first view is correct, we would expect that social behaviour would predict children’s use of request differing in their level of directness when asked to request ‘politely or ‘rudely’ and behavioural adjustment would predict the children’s judgements of the effectiveness of requests differing in their level of directness. If the second view is correct, we would expect that social behaviour would predict the use of request of different levels of directness in response to different social contexts. We would also expect that social behaviour would predict the differential judgements of effectiveness of request forms of different levels of directness in relation to different social contexts. Of course, if both alternatives apply, differences according to social behaviour would be seen in relation to both comprehension and use of requests with different levels of directness and adeptness in relating appropriate levels of directness to the social context. More specifically this study explored the following hypotheses: 1. High levels of aggressive behaviour problems (as measured by parent and/or self-report) would be associated with: greater likelihood of producing direct requests in face threatening request situations (i.e., requests to more powerful and/or distant others and/or requests that make a greater imposition on the other). Downloaded from http://fla.sagepub.com at PENNSYLVANIA STATE UNIV on April 14, 2008 © 2004 SAGE Publications. All rights reserved. Not for commercial use or unauthorized distribution.
351
24(3) Pedlow
8/31/04
FIRST LANGUAGE
3:54 PM
Page 6
VOLUME 24 ISSUE 3
2. High levels of anxious-fearful behaviour problems (both parent and self-report), and empathy would be associated with greater likelihood of producing less direct requests in face threatening request situations. 3. High levels of aggressive behaviour problems would be associated with increased likelihood of judging direct requests to be more effective when used in face threatening request situations. 4. High levels of anxious-fearful behaviour problems (both parent and self report) and empathy would be associated with increased likelihood of judging less direct requests to be effective when used in face threatening request situations.
METHOD Design and data collection for the original data set The children in Pedlow et al. (2001) were drawn from the Australian Temperament Project (ATP) sample. The ATP is a large-scale longitudinal study of the temperament and behavioural development of a large representative group of Victorian children followed since infancy (see Prior, Sanson, Smart & Oberklaid, 2000.) The children were between 10 and 11 years of age when they were interviewed. In general, children of this age can be expected to have mastered most aspects of politeness. Four groups of children were selected from the ATP sample on the basis of parents’, mainly mothers’, ratings of the children on the hostile-aggressive and anxious-fearful subscales of the Rutter Childhood Behaviour Questionnaire, parent form (Rutter, Tizard & Whitmore, 1970) at ages 6.5 and 8 years (for further details, see Pedlow et al., 2001). Eligible families, i.e., where the child met the behavioural selection criteria and who were still resident in the state of Victoria, were contacted by mail and by telephone follow-up and asked if they wished to take part in the study. For the comparison group a random sample of families where the child met the selection criteria was contacted and asked if they were willing to take part. For the behaviour problem groups all the families where the children met the criteria were contacted. The children were tested by the first author (RP) in their own homes. The visits were scheduled for after school or weekends. The task set was designed to fit within a single testing session lasting approximately one hour.
Analysis strategy The percentage participation rates, final numbers of children in each group, their age, gender, SES, and parents’ ethnic background and scores on the CBQ subscales were compared for the four groups in Pedlow et al. (2001). There was a significant difference in the sex distribution between groups, with more boys in the hostileaggressive and comorbid groups, χ2 (3) = 17.72, p < 0.01. There was a trend towards a lower participation rate for the hostile-aggressive group compared with the other 352
Downloaded from http://fla.sagepub.com at PENNSYLVANIA STATE UNIV on April 14, 2008 © 2004 SAGE Publications. All rights reserved. Not for commercial use or unauthorized distribution.
24(3) Pedlow
8/31/04
3:54 PM
Page 7
PEDLOW ET AL.: PREDICTORS OF CHILDREN’S POLITENESS
groups although this was not statistically significant. There were no other statistically significant differences between the four groups. On the basis of these findings the data from the four groups were combined for the present study. The unit of analysis for the present study was the individual utterance rather than the subject as would normally be the case in individual differences research. The reason for this strategy was that the definition of politeness is in terms of the relationship between the form of the utterance and the context. The basic question that was addressed in this study was how the relationship between form and social context (which were within-subject variables) varied in relation to the child’s empathy, temperament and behavioural adjustment (which were between-subject variables). Gender was also included in the analyses to ensure that it was not a confounding factor. Data were collected from 95 participants. This resulted in an effective item-wise N for the production study data of 95 × 12 items × 3 manner conditions or 3420. The item-wise N for the comprehension study was 95 × 8 items or 760. It is a feature of logit analysis (and logistic regression is simply a special case of logit analysis) that ‘item’ and ‘subject’ variables are effectively equivalent. An important distinction between logit analysis and its parametric equivalent, i.e., multivariate ANOVA, is that logit analysis does not require the assumption of independent observations which is required for the F test (Haberman, 1978). Thus, from the current study it is appropriate to draw conclusions about the effects of the predictor variables tested on children’s production and judgements about requests with the same strengths and limitations that would apply to a parametric multiple regression analysis. The requirement to investigate the relationships between individual differences and variations in the social context on children’s production and evaluation of different request strategies led us to select logistic regression analysis. This enabled us to explore how individual differences covaried with the social context of the request, request manner and the form of the request in relation to children’s production of and judgements about requests. The individual differences measures (i.e., parent-reported aggression and anxious fearful behaviour, approaching temperament, self-reported empathy, self-reported aggression and self-reported social anxiety) were treated as continuous variables, and the analytical question in each case was whether the relationships between social context and the production and judgements of different request strategies showed significant covariation with the individual differences variables. The analyses tested all possible combinations of the covariates with all possible combinations of the social context variables as predictors of the outcome variables, i.e., children’s production of different request styles and their judgements about different request styles. The analysis method used a forward step likelihood ratio test to establish significant terms in the regression model. Comparisons using other entry methods yielded similar results. To use this analysis strategy we combined the data from the original four groups in Pedlow et al. (2001). The analyses reported in the results section of the relationships of individual differences in behavioural adjustment to production and evaluation of politeness are directly comparable to the findings reported in Pedlow et al., suggesting that combining the four groups did not distort the analysis outcomes. Downloaded from http://fla.sagepub.com at PENNSYLVANIA STATE UNIV on April 14, 2008 © 2004 SAGE Publications. All rights reserved. Not for commercial use or unauthorized distribution.
353
24(3) Pedlow
8/31/04
FIRST LANGUAGE
3:55 PM
Page 8
VOLUME 24 ISSUE 3
Predictor variables Child Behaviour Questionnaire The Rutter Childhood Behaviour Questionnaire, parent form (Rutter et al., 1970) is a widely used, 18-item scale with three subscales: Hostile-Aggressive, Anxious-Fearful and Hyperactive-Distractible. Only the Hostile-Aggressive and Anxious-Fearful subscales were used in the current study. The Hostile-Aggressive subscale includes items such as ‘Frequently fights with other children’ and ‘Bullies other children’. The Anxious-Fearful subscale includes items such as ‘Often worried, worries about many things’ and ‘Tends to be fearful or afraid of new things or new situations’. The response categories are 0 (doesn’t apply), 1 (applies somewhat) and 2 (certainly applies). The reliabilities obtained for the Hostile-Aggressive and Anxious-Fearful scales were (α = 0.7) and (α = 0.65), respectively. Empathy questionnaire This child self-report scale was adapted from a measure originally developed by Davis (1980) for adult use. The language was adapted to suit children aged 10–11 years. The measure has a total of 26 items and comprises four subscales: empathic concern – empathic response to others’ feelings; perspective taking – ability to take others’ point of view; personal distress – feeling distress in response to others’ distress; and fantasy – identification with characters. The scales used as predictors in the current analyses were: (a) the empathic concern subscale, which contains items such as ‘Sometimes I don’t feel very sorry for other people when bad things happen to them’ and ‘I feel sad when I see a new kid in the group who looks lonely’; and (b) the perspective taking scale, which contains items such as ‘I find it hard to see things from another kid’s point of view’ and ‘If I’m with a group of kids and we’re trying to decide what to do, I try and think about what the other kids want as well as what I want’. A high score on both scales corresponded to higher levels of empathy. The response categories are 0 (doesn’t describe me at all), 1 (describes me a little), 2 (describes me fairly well) and 3 (describes me very well). Alpha reliabilities were (α = 0.44) for empathic concern and (α = 0.52) for perspective taking. Self-report aggression measure This child self-report scale was adapted from an interview protocol developed by Pitkanen (1969). The adaptation involved mainly some minor changes to wording to follow Australian English usage. The measure comprised 27 items divided into the following 5 subscales: Direct physical aggression; Direct verbal aggression, Mimicry and teasing, Indirect physical aggression, Indirect verbal aggression. Following the original interview protocol, separate forms with gender-appropriate wording were created for boys and girls. For this study only the Direct Physical Aggression scale was used. This scale contained items such as: ‘Do you ever fight with a boy/girl or try to hurt him in any way, even if he hasn’t done anything to you?’; ‘Do you ever try to tease a boy/girl of your size by taking his stuff, or breaking it, or something like that?’ A high score on this measure corresponded to a high level of self-reported aggressive behaviour. The response categories are 0 (Never), 1 (Sometimes), 2 (Often). The reliability for this scale was α = 0.91. Social anxiety questionnaire This is a 10-item child self-report scale tapping children’s anxiety in social situations 354
Downloaded from http://fla.sagepub.com at PENNSYLVANIA STATE UNIV on April 14, 2008 © 2004 SAGE Publications. All rights reserved. Not for commercial use or unauthorized distribution.
24(3) Pedlow
8/31/04
3:55 PM
Page 9
PEDLOW ET AL.: PREDICTORS OF CHILDREN’S POLITENESS
developed by La Greca, Kraslow-Dandes, Wick, Shaw & Stone (1988). This scale contains items such as ‘I worry about being teased’ and ‘I feel shy around kids I don’t know’. A high score on this scale corresponded to high levels of social anxiety. The response categories for the scale are 0 (Never true), 1 (Sometimes true) and 2 (Always true). The reliability obtained for this scale was α = 0.73. Short Temperament Scale for Children, Approach subscale The STSC contains 30 items comprising 4 subscales. Only the Approach subscale was used in this study. The content of this subscale includes items such as ‘My child is shy with strange adults’ and ‘Not comfortable about joining in’. A high score on this scale corresponded to less approaching behavioural style. The response categories range from 1 (Almost never) to 6 (Almost always). For details regarding the psychometric properties of this scale, see Sanson, Smart, Prior, Oberklaid & Pedlow (1994). The reliability obtained for this scale was α = 0.84.
Outcome variables Production tasks These comprised a series of vignettes that were read to the children. In the vignettes the child had to make a request to the child’s mother, a named sibling, the child’s teacher, or a named classmate. The children were also asked to produce each request as they would usually, as they would if they were asking ‘politely’ and as they would if they were asking ‘rudely’. (The vignettes are presented in Appendix A.) The individual request tasks were presented in a random order which was held constant throughout. The resulting requests were coded as described in the statistical analysis section. Possible values were 1 = ‘direct’, 2 = ‘less direct’. Comprehension tasks These comprised a set of vignettes about social situations involving requests of differing levels of directness. The child’s task was to judge the effectiveness of different requests in different social contexts. (For full details of the comprehension tasks, see Appendix B.) The vignettes were read to the children. Similarly to the production task, the tasks were presented in a random order that was held constant throughout. The request form was coded as either non-polite = 0 or polite = 1. The outcome measure was the child’s response as to whether the request strategy would be effective. The possible values were yes = 1 and no = 2. This approach was adapted from Rubin & Borwick (1984). A preliminary study by Pedlow (1997) found that children classified more than 95% of requests with and without the politeness strategies used in this research as either effective or not effective, even when a third option – unsure – was included.
Social context dimensions For both the production and comprehension tasks, the power, distance and degree of imposition on the other were operationalized as follows: Power Power of the intended hearer was defined in terms of the age of the intended hearer. The possible values were 0 = sibling or classmate, and 1 = teacher or mother. Downloaded from http://fla.sagepub.com at PENNSYLVANIA STATE UNIV on April 14, 2008 © 2004 SAGE Publications. All rights reserved. Not for commercial use or unauthorized distribution.
355
24(3) Pedlow
8/31/04
FIRST LANGUAGE
3:55 PM
Page 10
VOLUME 24 ISSUE 3
Distance Social distance was defined in terms of the familiarity of the intended hearer. Possible values were 0 = family member (mother or sibling), and 1 = school acquaintance (teacher or classmate). Pedlow (1997) validated that the children perceived mothers and teachers as more powerful than siblings and classmates, and mothers and siblings as closer than teachers and classmates. Degree of imposition on the other Degree of imposition on the other was defined in terms of the nature of the request. Less imposing requests were defined as requests for everyday objects. More imposing requests were defined as requests for the other to do an action. Possible values were 0 = requests for object, and 1 = requests for action. These definitions of more and less imposing requests were adapted directly from Garvey (1984).
Statistical analysis Two statistics are reported for the logistic regression analyses, the Odds Ratio (OR) and the Wald statistic. The OR provides a measure of effect magnitude and direction while the Wald statistic provides another estimate of effect magnitude. The OR is defined as the probability of the event divided by the probability of the non-event. When logistic regression coefficients are expressed as ORs they are interpreted as the effect of the independent variable on the OR of the event. (ORs > 1 imply that a positive change in the independent variable will result in an increased likelihood of the event occurring; ORs < 1 imply that a positive change in the independent variable will result in a reduced likelihood of the event occurring.) The Wald statistic is a generalized form of the χ2 statistic. It provides a test that the particular effect is significantly different from zero and an estimate of the magnitude of the effect. As a form of the χ2 statistic, it is influenced by the number of cases and thus cannot be directly compared across analyses. However, within analyses it provides a directly comparable measure of effect size and statistical significance.
Coding of the production task data Table 1 gives a description of the request coding categories used. The requests were coded into seven categories based primarily on those presented by Ervin-Tripp (1976). The great majority of the responses (approx. 95% including hesitations and mis-starts) produced by the children consisted only of a single clearly identifiable request. For hesitations and mis-starts, the final version was coded as the request. For the remaining 5%, the entire verbal sequence produced for that item was considered and coded as the request. In order to increase the cell ns to enable the statistical analysis to proceed, the seven request categories were collapsed into two types based on their overall structural characteristics. The first type comprised categories 1 to 5 in Table 1; requests in these categories can readily be understood as requests without taking into account the context of the requests. The second type was made up of categories 6 and 7 in Table 1; requests in these categories cannot be unambiguously interpreted as requests without taking into account the context, e.g., a comment such as ‘that’s a really nice 356
Downloaded from http://fla.sagepub.com at PENNSYLVANIA STATE UNIV on April 14, 2008 © 2004 SAGE Publications. All rights reserved. Not for commercial use or unauthorized distribution.
24(3) Pedlow
8/31/04
3:55 PM
Page 11
PEDLOW ET AL.: PREDICTORS OF CHILDREN’S POLITENESS
Table 1 Request category coding with description and examples (after Ervin-Tripp, 1976)
No. Request category
Description and examples
1
Assertions
These had the general form I am + using x, e.g., ‘I am using your game.’
2
Need/want statements
‘I wanna a pencil’, ‘I need the answer to the problem’, ‘Mum, I want a biscuit’
3
Imperatives
These generally include a verb, an object and sometimes a beneficiary. ‘Gimmee the computer now, so that I can play it’, ‘Tell me the sum right now; help me now’
4
Embedded imperatives
Imperatives in which the agent and object are explicit. ‘Can you play this game with me?’, ‘Could you come and play the board game with me?’, ‘Could you please help me work this sum out?’
5
Permission directives
These are directives of the form Modal + Beneficiary + Have/verb +? ‘Excuse me Mrs [Name], Could I please have that pencil?’, ‘Could we please have some of that to eat?’
6
Question directives
These request forms give listeners who do not wish to comply an alternative option of treating the request as an information question. ‘Would you like to play my new board game?’, ‘Would I be able to have a red pencil?’
7
Hints
These include a wide range of forms that on the surface are not requests. ‘Mrs [Name], I don’t really understand this work’, ‘I don’t know this sum’
game’ may function as a request in an appropriate social context and be easily understood as such by both participants.
RESULTS Production study Figure 1 shows a summary representation of the production task data. The columns show the percentages of type 1 and type 2 requests produced in the different social context conditions averaged over the four groups; type 1 requests comprised assertions through to permission directives while type 2 requests comprised question directives and hints (see Table 2 for details). Figure 2 provides another representation of the production task data showing the variation in request form associated with manner. The columns show the percentages of type 1 and type 2 requests produced in the different manner conditions collapsed over social context. Downloaded from http://fla.sagepub.com at PENNSYLVANIA STATE UNIV on April 14, 2008 © 2004 SAGE Publications. All rights reserved. Not for commercial use or unauthorized distribution.
357
24(3) Pedlow
8/31/04
FIRST LANGUAGE
3:55 PM
Page 12
VOLUME 24 ISSUE 3
100 90
Type 1 directives
80
Type 2 directives
Percentage
70 60 50 40 30 20 10 0 RO1
RA1
RO2
RA2
RO3
RA3
RO4
RA4
Requests Figure 1
Percentages of requests by overall request type and social context (collapsed over way of asking); adapted from Pedlow et al., 2001. (Type 1: assertions to permission directives; Type 2: question directives and hints. RO = Requests for object; RA = Requests for action; 1 = sibling; 2 = parent; 3 = teacher; 4 = classmate)
100 90
Type 1 directives
80
Type 2 directives
Percentage
70 60 50 40 30 20 10 0 usual
polite
rude
Request type Figure 2
358
Percentages of requests by overall request type, and way of asking (collapsed over social context condition); adapted from Pedlow et al., 2001 Downloaded from http://fla.sagepub.com at PENNSYLVANIA STATE UNIV on April 14, 2008 © 2004 SAGE Publications. All rights reserved. Not for commercial use or unauthorized distribution.
24(3) Pedlow
8/31/04
3:55 PM
Page 13
PEDLOW ET AL.: PREDICTORS OF CHILDREN’S POLITENESS
Table 2 Individual differences predicting children’s production of different request styles
Covariates Hostile-Aggressive Anxious-Fearful
Logistic regression term
OR
Wald
df
Distance Level of imposition Way of asking usual-polite usual-rude Anxious-Fearful × power Hostile-Aggressive × distance
0.34 8.13
44.36** 128.24** 80.75** 7.51** 80.60** 13.95** 10.49**
1 1 2 1 1 1 1
5.29* 123.33** 78.17** 7.63** 78.17** 5.13*
1 1 2 1 1 1
Gender
No significant effects
Approaching temperament
Distance Level of imposition Way of asking usual-polite usual-rude Approach × distance
Empathya
No significant effects
Self-report aggressionb
No significant effects
Self-report anxiety
No significant effects
0.66 0.09 0.7 1.33
0.61 7.80 0.66 0.09 0.87
* p < 0.05; ** p < 0.001 a Both subscales tested, i.e., empathic concern and perspective taking b Direct physical aggression subscale tested
Logistic regression analyses of the production study data found the following significant effects: Distance, OR = 0.41, Wald = 36.43, df = 1, p < 0.001; Level of imposition, OR = 7.93, Wald = 126.81, df = 1, p < 0.001; and manner, Wald = 79.61, df = 2, p < 0.001 (usual-polite OR = 0.66, Wald = 7.36, df = 1, p < 0.001) (usual-rude, OR = 0.09, Wald = 79.44, df = 1, p < 0.001). Reviewing the ORs the results indicated that: requests to more distant others reduced the likelihood of a less direct request (i.e., the value of the OR is < 1); requests for action increased the likelihood of a less direct request; asking politely reduced the likelihood of using a less direct request and asking rudely also reduced the likelihood of using a less direct request. All these effects were statistically significant at p < 0.001. Comparison of the Wald statistics indicated that the largest effect was due to level of imposition, while the second largest is due to Downloaded from http://fla.sagepub.com at PENNSYLVANIA STATE UNIV on April 14, 2008 © 2004 SAGE Publications. All rights reserved. Not for commercial use or unauthorized distribution.
359
24(3) Pedlow
8/31/04
FIRST LANGUAGE
3:55 PM
Page 14
VOLUME 24 ISSUE 3
100 90 80 Percentage
70 60 50 40 30 20 10 0 RA1
RO1
RA2
RO2 RA3 Request forms Non polite
Figure 3
RO3
RA4
RO4
Polite
Percentages of request forms judged effective by politeness and social context; adapted from Pedlow et al., 2001
manner of the request. Because manner is a variable made up of three categories, ORs are produced for two comparisons. The results reported in Table 2 show all the statistically signification covariations between individual differences in children’s temperament, empathy and parent and self-reported anxiety and aggressive behaviour, and the relationships between social context and the production of different types of requests. All these variables were tested within the same analysis. Multiple entry methods were tested in order to check for any possible effects due to correlations between the predictor variables. The results of the analysis reported in Table 2 showed that: high levels of hostile aggressive behaviour problems (BPs) and requests to more distant others predicted greater likelihood of using less direct requests; high levels of anxious-fearful BPs making requests to more powerful predicted greater likelihood of using less direct requests; and high levels of approaching temperament and requests to more distant others predicted less likelihood of using less direct requests. None of the other individual differences showed significant interactions with children’s production of different request types in response to social context. Also no individual differences showed any significant interactions with differences due to manner of the request.
Comprehension study Figure 3 shows a summary representation of the comprehension task data. The columns show the percentages of polite and non-polite requests judged as being effective in the different social context conditions. 360
Downloaded from http://fla.sagepub.com at PENNSYLVANIA STATE UNIV on April 14, 2008 © 2004 SAGE Publications. All rights reserved. Not for commercial use or unauthorized distribution.
24(3) Pedlow
8/31/04
3:55 PM
Page 15
PEDLOW ET AL.: PREDICTORS OF CHILDREN’S POLITENESS
Table 3
Individual differences predicting children’s evaluation of the effectiveness of different request styles
Covariates
Hostile-Aggressive Anxious-Fearful
Significant logistic regression terms
OR
Wald
df
Form Power Level of imposition Distance × Hostile-Aggressive
0.3 1.53 0.57 1.25
354.00** 9.05** 15.19** 6.12*
1 1 1 1
Gender
No significant effects
Approaching temperament
Form Level of imposition Power × approach
0.04 0.58 1.11
329.04** 14.10** 8.85**
1 1 1
Self-report empathya
Form Level of imposition Perspective taking Power × empathic concern
0.03 0.58 0.69 1.25
342.68** 14.24** 5.26* 13.99**
1 1 1 1
Self-report aggressionb
Form Power Level of imposition Level of imposition × direct physical aggression
0.03 1.51 0.60 0.65
349.16** 8.51** 11.63** 6.02**
1 1 1 1
Self-report anxiety
Form Level of imposition Power × self-report anxiety
0.04 0.57 1.36
347.98** 15.79* 9.13**
1 1 1
* p < 0.05; ** p < 0.001 a Both subscales tested, i.e., empathic concern and perspective taking b Direct physical aggression subscale tested
Logistic regression analysis of the comprehension study data showed the following significant effects: Form, OR = 0.03, Wald = 358.83, df = 1, p < 0.001; Power, OR = 1.53, Wald = 8.98, df = 1, p < 0.001; Level of imposition OR = 0.58, Wald = 15.02, df = 1, p < 0.001. The results showed that polite form resulted in a reduced likelihood of requests being judged to be not effective; requests to more powerful others increased the likelihood of the request being judged not effective, and requests for action reduced the likelihood of the request being judged not effective. The analyses in Table 3 investigated the relationship of the same set of individual differences used in the analyses reported in Table 2, to children’s sensitivity to social context in evaluating the effectiveness of more and less direct requests in different Downloaded from http://fla.sagepub.com at PENNSYLVANIA STATE UNIV on April 14, 2008 © 2004 SAGE Publications. All rights reserved. Not for commercial use or unauthorized distribution.
361
24(3) Pedlow
8/31/04
FIRST LANGUAGE
3:55 PM
Page 16
VOLUME 24 ISSUE 3
social contexts. The results of these analyses showed that: requests to more distant others and high levels of hostile aggressive BPs predicted greater likelihood of requests being judged not effective; requests to more powerful others and high levels of approaching temperament predicted greater likelihood of requests being judged not effective; requests to more powerful others and high levels of empathic concern predicted greater likelihood of requests being judged not effective; requests to more powerful others and high levels of self-report anxiety predicted greater likelihood of requests being judged not effective. Two interaction terms had ORs < 1. This indicates that an increase in the interaction term is associated with a decrease in likelihood of the outcome event: high levels of self-reported aggression and more imposing requests predicted less likelihood of requests being judged not effective; high levels of perspective taking predicted less likelihood of requests being judged not effective. There were no significant interactions between any individual differences and request form.
DISCUSSION The study investigated two broad alternatives with regard to the relationship between children’s social and behavioural adjustment and their ability to produce and comprehend politeness in requests. The first alternative was that children’s broader social behaviour is related directly to their knowledge of, and ability to distinguish between, different request forms. That is, children with generally less favourable social and behavioural adjustment might be less able to produce and distinguish between requests that vary in their everyday politeness, compared with children with more favourable social and behavioural adjustment. The second alternative was that children’s broader social behaviour is related to their capacity to relate the use and appropriateness of different request forms to the social context of the request situation. That is, children with generally less favourable social and behavioural adjustment might have comparable knowledge of everyday politeness to better adjusted peers but be less adept at relating different request strategies to variation in the social context of the request situation. The preliminary analyses of the data in Fig. 1 showed that the children varied their use of indirectness in requests in relation to social distance and level of imposition of the request. Children also varied their use of indirectness in requests in response to being asked to ask politely or rudely as distinct from how they would usually ask. The analyses of the comprehension data showed that children’s judgements of effectiveness differed in response to whether the request form was direct or indirect, whether the requests were addressed to more or less powerful others, and whether the requests were for action or for objects. There were a number of significant relationships between individual differences and children’s production of requests with different levels of directness. However, the directions of the relationships were not as predicted. The direction of the relationship between children’s production of different requests and hostile aggressive BPs was in the opposite direction to that predicted. Children with high levels of hostile-aggressive BPs making requests to more powerful others (adults) were more likely to use less 362
Downloaded from http://fla.sagepub.com at PENNSYLVANIA STATE UNIV on April 14, 2008 © 2004 SAGE Publications. All rights reserved. Not for commercial use or unauthorized distribution.
24(3) Pedlow
8/31/04
3:55 PM
Page 17
PEDLOW ET AL.: PREDICTORS OF CHILDREN’S POLITENESS
direct rather than more direct requests. Children with high levels of anxious-fearful BPs making requests to more powerful others (adults) were less likely to use less direct requests. One initial finding in regard to children’s judgements was that, while there was a strong relationship between request form and each of the individual social context factors examined and children’s effectiveness judgements, there were no higher-order interactions between request form and the social context factors. It is possible that this is due to the specific requests used in the comprehension tasks, or it may be the case that children actually consider these factors separately in this kind of social reasoning task. High levels of a number of individual differences, namely hostile-aggressive BPs, approaching temperament, empathic concern and self-report anxiety all resulted in children being more likely to judge both direct and less direct requests to adults (mothers and teachers) compared with requests to other children (siblings and classmates) to be ineffective. High levels of self-reported aggression and high levels of empathy (cognitive perspective taking) resulted in children being less likely to judge requests to be ineffective in all social contexts. It must be acknowledged, however, that the reliability of empathy measure used in this study was less than ideal, and therefore some caution should be used in interpreting the findings regarding empathy. The results showed that both hostile-aggressive and anxious-fearful BPs were related to children’s use of requests of different levels of directness and their judgements about the effectiveness of different levels of directness in different social contexts. This suggests that children with less favourable behavioural adjustment may be less adept at using and understanding the effectiveness of different requests in response to differences in the social context. The results showed no evidence of a gender effect on children’s politeness. The lack of any effect of gender here also confirms that the different ratios of males to females in the groups did not affect the observed politeness results. The results showed that approaching temperament was related to children’s sensitivity to the social distance of the hearer on the production task and age of the hearer on the comprehension task. The results also showed that perspective taking, empathic concern, self-reported aggression and self-reported social anxiety were related to children’s sensitivity to social context in evaluating the effectiveness of different request strategies. Given that the research examined only a single indicator of politeness, it is necessary to be cautious in drawing any strong conclusions from these findings about the broader relationship between children’s non-linguistic social behaviour and their politeness skills. Nevertheless, the pattern of findings suggests some tentative conclusions. The results showed that individual differences were related to children’s use of social context in producing and evaluating politeness. However, individual differences were not related to the ways that children varied the directness of their requests in response to manner (i.e., being required to ask politely vs. rudely) or in their evaluation of polite and rude requests. This suggests that individual differences are related to children’s knowledge and awareness of social dimensions rather than to their knowledge of what are likely to be socially parentally defined polite and rude ways of requesting. One specific area where further research would be useful would be to explore Downloaded from http://fla.sagepub.com at PENNSYLVANIA STATE UNIV on April 14, 2008 © 2004 SAGE Publications. All rights reserved. Not for commercial use or unauthorized distribution.
363
24(3) Pedlow
8/31/04
FIRST LANGUAGE
3:55 PM
Page 18
VOLUME 24 ISSUE 3
whether the differences in politeness skills observed in the current study influence how children with behaviour problems are perceived and responded to by others. Further research on this issue should enable an understanding of how linguistic politeness influences overall social outcomes. In turn, this raises the exciting prospect that interventions designed to promote children’s competencies with respect to linguistic politeness may contribute to improved developmental outcomes for individuals with initially less favourable behavioural adjustment.
NOTE 1. The work described in this paper was completed by the first author as part of his PhD research in the Department of Psychology Melbourne University (1998).
REFERENCES Baroni, M. R. & Axia, G. (1989). Children’s meta-pragmatic abilities and the identification of polite and impolite requests. First Language, 9, 285–297. Bates, E. (1983). Language and context. New York: Academic Press. Bates, E., Bretherton I. & Snyder, L. (1988). From first words to grammar: Individual differences and dissociable mechanisms. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Bates, E. & Silvern, L. (1977). Social adjustment and politeness in preschoolers. Journal of Communication, 27, 104–111. Becker, J. A. (1986). Bossy and nice requests: Children’s production and interpretation. MerrillPalmer Quarterly, 32, 393–413. Becker, J. A. (1990). Processes in the acquisition of pragmatic competence. In G. Conti-Ramsden & C. E. Snow (Eds), Children’s language, Vol. 7 (pp. 7–24). Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum. Becker, J. A. & Smenner, P. C. (1986). The spontaneous use of thank you by preschoolers as a function of sex, socioeconomic status and listener status. Language in Society, 15, 537–546. Becker, J. A., Whitaker, E. M. & Gesten, E. L. (1992). Requests and rerequests in normal and emotionally disturbed children. Bulletin de Psychologie, 46, 60–66. Blum-Kulka, S. (1990). You don’t touch lettuce with your fingers: Parental politeness in family discourse. Journal of Pragmatics, 14, 259–288. Brown, P. & Levinson, S. C. (1978). Universals in language usage: Politeness phenomena. In E. N. Goody (Ed.), Questions and politeness, strategies in social interaction (pp. 56–310). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Brown, P. & Levinson, S. C. (1987). Politeness: Some universals in language usage. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Brown, R. (1988). More than P’s and Q’s. Contemporary Psychology, 33, 749–750. Camras, L. A., Pristo, T. M. & Brown, M. J. K. (1985). Directive choice by children and adults: Affect, situation and linguistic politeness. Merrill-Palmer Quarterly, 31, 19–31. Condon, W. S. (1984). Communication and empathy. In J. Lichtenberg, M. Bornstein & R. Silver (Eds), Empathy II (pp. 20–35). Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum. Davis, M. (1980). A multidimensional approach to individual differences in empathy. JSAS Catalog of Selected Documents in Psychology, 10, 1–17. Eisenberg, N. & Fabes, R. A. (1990). Empathy: Conceptualisation, measurement and relationship to prosocial behaviour. Motivation and Emotion, 14, 131–149. 364
Downloaded from http://fla.sagepub.com at PENNSYLVANIA STATE UNIV on April 14, 2008 © 2004 SAGE Publications. All rights reserved. Not for commercial use or unauthorized distribution.
24(3) Pedlow
8/31/04
3:55 PM
Page 19
PEDLOW ET AL.: PREDICTORS OF CHILDREN’S POLITENESS Ervin-Tripp, S. (1976). In Sybil there? The structure of some American English directives. Language in Society, 5, 25–65. Ervin-Tripp, S. (1977). Wait for me roller skate! In S. Ervin-Tripp & C. Mitchell-Kernan (Eds), Child discourse (pp. 165–188). New York: Academic Press Inc. Feshbach, N. D. (1978). Studies of empathic behavior in children. In B. Maher (Ed.), Progress in experimental personality research (pp. 1–47). New York: Academic Press Inc. Fraser, B. (1990). Perspectives on politeness. Journal of Pragmatics, 14, 219–236. Garton, A. F. & Pratt, C. (1990). Children’s pragmatic judgments of direct and indirect requests. First Language, 10, 51–59. Garvey, C. (1984). Children’s talk. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press. Gleason, J. B., Perlman, R. Y. & Blank, E. (1984). What’s the magic word: Learning language through politeness routines. Discourse Processes, 7, 493–502. Haberman, S. J. (1978). Analysis of qualitative data, Vol. 1. London: Academic Press. Hymel, S., Rubin, K. H., Rowden, L. & LeMare, L. (1990). Children’s peer relationships: Longitudinal prediction of internalising and externalising problems from middle to late childhood. Child Development, 61, 2004–2021. Ide, S. (1989). Preface. Multilingua, 8, 97–99. Labov, W. & Fanshel, D. (1977). Therapeutic discourse: Psychotherapy as conversation. New York: Academic Press. La Greca, A. M., Kraslow-Dandes, S., Wick, P., Shaw, K. & Stone, W. L. (1988). Development of the social anxiety scale for children: Reliability and concurrent validity. Journal of Clinical Child Psychology, 17, 84–91. Pedlow, R. (1997). Linguistic politeness in middle childhood: Its social functions, and relationships to behaviour and development. Unpublished PhD thesis, University of Melbourne, Victoria, Australia. Pedlow, R., Wales, R. & Sanson, A. (2001). Children’s production and comprehension of politeness in requests: Relationships to behavioural adjustment in middle childhood. Journal of Language and Social Psychology, 20, 23–60. Pitkanen, L. (1969). A descriptive model of aggression and non-aggression with applications to children’s behaviour. Jyvaskyla Studies in Education Psychology and Social Research, N.R. 19. Jyvaskyla, Finland: University of Jyvaskyla. Plomin, R. (1983). Childhood temperament. In B. B. Lahey & A. E. Kazdin (Eds), Advances in clinical child psychology (Vol. 6, pp. 45–92). New York: Plenum Press. Prior, M. R., Sanson, A., Smart, D. & Oberklaid, F. (2000). Pathways from infancy to adolescence: Australian Temperament Project 1983–2000. Melbourne: Australian Institute of Family Studies. Robinson, W. P. (1974). Language and social behaviour. London: Penguin Books. Rubin, K. H & Borwick, D. (1984) Communicative skills and sociability. In H. Sypher & J. Applegate (Eds), Communication by children and adults: Social cognitive and strategic processes (pp. 153–170). Beverley Hills: Sage. Rutter, M., Tizard, J. & Whitmore, K. (Eds) (1970). Education, health and behaviour. London: Longmans Green. Sanson, A., Smart, D., Prior, M., Oberklaid, F. & Pedlow, R. (1994). The structure of temperament from three to seven years: Age, sex and sociodemographic influences. Merrill-Palmer Quarterly, 40, 233–252. Snow, C. E., Perlman, R. Y., Gleason, J. B. & Hooshyar, N. (1990). Developmental perspectives on politeness. Journal of Pragmatics, 14, 289–302. Tomasello, M. (1992). The social bases of language acquisition. Social Development, 1, 67–87. Watts, R. J., Ide, S. & Ehlich, K. (1990). Introduction. In R. J. Watts, S. Ide & K. Ehlich (Eds), Politeness in language: Studies in its history, theory and practice (pp. 1–17). Berlin: Mouton de Grouyter. Downloaded from http://fla.sagepub.com at PENNSYLVANIA STATE UNIV on April 14, 2008 © 2004 SAGE Publications. All rights reserved. Not for commercial use or unauthorized distribution.
365
24(3) Pedlow
8/31/04
FIRST LANGUAGE
3:55 PM
Page 20
VOLUME 24 ISSUE 3
APPENDIX A Politeness production task instructions and vignettes Now I am going to read you some descriptions of situations where you need to ask other people for things. Some of these situations may not have happened to you exactly but I’d like you to pretend. For each situation I would like you to tell me how you would usually ask. Then I’d like you to tell me a really polite way to ask. Then I’d like you to tell me a really rude way to ask. 1. You’ve got a new board game and you want [name of sibling] to play it with you. How would you ask [name of sibling] to play it with you? 2. You’re working on a maths problem in class and you can’t do it. You see [name of classmate] who knows how to do it. How would you ask him/her for help with the problem? 3. You’ve got a new board game and you want your mum to play it with you. How would you ask your mum to play the game with you? 4. You’re working on a maths problem in class and you need some help with it. How would you ask the teacher for help with the problem? 5. You’re doing some drawing in class and you need another colour texta for your drawing. How would you ask the teacher for another texta? 6. Mum’s just come home with some shopping and you see that she’s got some sweet biscuits and you think that you’d like to have one. How would you ask your mum for a biscuit? 7. Your pen’s run out at school and you need another one to do some writing. You see [name of classmate] who’s got a couple of pens. How would you ask him/her if you can borrow a pen? 8. You happen to see that [name of sibling] has got a new computer game that you like. How would you ask [name of sibling] if you could borrow it?
APPENDIX B Politeness comprehension task instructions and vignettes Now I am going to read you some ways of asking other people for things in different situations. Some of these situations may never have happened to you but I’d like you to pretend. I’d like you to tell me if you think that the way I read out would be an effective way to ask in that situation. By effective, what I mean is do you think that if you asked that way, that the person you were asking would be likely to do what you asked or to give you what you were asking for. (After each task/question, the interviewer says: ‘Would that be an effective way to ask? Y/N? [if not sure, which do you think more, yes or no] Why is that?’) 366
Downloaded from http://fla.sagepub.com at PENNSYLVANIA STATE UNIV on April 14, 2008 © 2004 SAGE Publications. All rights reserved. Not for commercial use or unauthorized distribution.
24(3) Pedlow
8/31/04
3:55 PM
Page 21
PEDLOW ET AL.: PREDICTORS OF CHILDREN’S POLITENESS
You’re playing catch with your younger brother/sister and the ball goes over the fence. You don’t feel like going to get it. So you say to your brother/sister, ‘Go get me the ball would ya?’ You want to borrow a pen from your friend at school. So you say to your friend, ‘Have you got a spare pen I could use?’ Your friend has a new computer game that you’d like to have a go with. So you say to your friend, ‘Hi that looks good, could I have a go?’ You’re out with your mum on a really hot day and you want to get a drink. So you say to your mum, ‘Mum, could I have a drink?’ [careful with intonation] You want to see a particular video which you don’t think your parents will agree to. So you say to your parents, ‘I want to see that one.’ Your older brother/sister has a [football/basketball] which he/she doesn’t use much but which you’d like to use. So you say to him/her, ‘Would it be OK if I used your [football/basketball]?’ You want to borrow a pen from your friend at school. So you say to your friend, ‘Give me your pen.’ You’re playing catch with your younger brother/sister and the ball goes over the fence. You don’t feel like going to get it. So you say to your younger brother/sister, ‘Get me the ball.’ Your friend has a new computer game that you’d like to have a go with. So you say to your friend, ‘Give me a go.’ You’re out with your mum on a really hot day and you want to get a drink? So you say to your mum, ‘I want a drink.’ You want to see a particular video [movie on TV if no video] which you don’t think your parents will agree to. So you say to your parents, ‘Could I see that one, my friend said its really good?’ Your older brother/sister has a [football/basketball] which he/she doesn’t use much but which you’d like to use. So you say to him/her, ‘I want to use your football/basketball.’
Address for correspondence Dr Robert Pedlow, Research Leader, Telstra Centre for Accessibility, Telstra Research Laboratories, Telstra Corporation, Clayton, Victoria 3168, Australia E:
[email protected]
Downloaded from http://fla.sagepub.com at PENNSYLVANIA STATE UNIV on April 14, 2008 © 2004 SAGE Publications. All rights reserved. Not for commercial use or unauthorized distribution.
367
