Summary of the properties of business requests

164 Chapter 7. Directness and Indirectness of Business Requests

FDA inspection for their X facilities. …

[17] Eastarr is willing and capable of meeting the requirement of FDA inspection for their X facility.

It is evident that the addressee of the RESULT is not offended by the coerciveness.

The seller indicates his cooperative attitude towards the request, which might be accounted for by business gains brought about by compliance. If E were not made aware of the obligation to comply with the law, there would be no business at all.

This could result in loss on both sides. Thus, coerciveness is employed for the mutual benefits of both parties. Shared understanding of the application of RESULT lessens the imposition of Regulation Requests. There are 14 Regulation Requests, making up a portion of 2.6% of the data in this study. Table 7.2.2.4 shows that 71.4% of the Regulation Requests are realized with RESULT.

Regulation Requests Perf Imp Result Want After Can Inter Point

% 7.1 0 71.4 0 7.1 14.2 0 0

Table 7.2.2.4. Distribution of the strategies of Regulation Requests

The concentration of RESULT and its lowest frequency among the four types of business requests may lead to the assumption that the relationship symbolized by Regulation Requests does not represent the normal relationship between buyers and sellers. It may instead correspond to a relationship between business people and business regulations, to which both sellers and buyers must adhere. The coerciveness of Regulation Requests does not stand for the authoritative compelling force of one party over another, but for the authority of the law to business people including both buyers and sellers. In other words, it is not the interactants who use RESULT who are coercive, but the law.

165 Chapter 7. Directness and Indirectness of Business Requests

Table 7.2.2.5.1. Summary of the properties of business requests

Dimensions of Imposition LOW MEDIUM HIGH ROUTINE REQUESTS

Difficulty LOW

Importance LOW

Rights & obligations MEDIUM

NEGOTIATION REQUESTS

Difficulty MEDIUM HIGH

Importance MEDIUM

Rights & obligations LOW

CONSEQUENCE REQUESTS

Difficulty HIGH

Importance HIGH

Rights & obligations LOW

REGULATION REQUESTS

Difficulty LOW MEDIUM HIGH

Importance HIGH

Rights & obligations HIGH

requests in terms of imposition discussed in Sections 7.2.2.1 to 7.2.2.4. In the ‘HIGH’

Column, Regulation Requests have three positive indicators, Consequence Requests two, Negotiation Requests one and Routine Requests none. This means that Routine Requests have no dimensions with high degrees of imposition, and Regulation Requests have high degrees in all three dimensions, with the others in the middle.

Still, Regulation Requests might have the highest rank of imposition, but their relationship to the law lessens their degree of imposition (Brown & Levinson, 1987:77). The result is that Consequence Requests take on the highest rank of imposition, and Routine Requests the lowest, with Negotiation and Regulation Requests standing between the two. Table 7.2.2.5.2 shows the frequencies of all the

166 Chapter 7. Directness and Indirectness of Business Requests

strategies for each type of business requests.

Business Requests

N. PERF IMP RESULT WANT AFTER CAN INTER POINT

Routine 350 2.0 51.7 0 4.3 2.6 3.1 33.7 2.3

Regulation 14 7.1 0 71.4 0 7.1 14.2 0 0

Negotiation 89 2.2 2.2 3.4 13.5 7.9 24.7 36.0 10.1 Consequence 69 2.9 1.4 0 11.6 1.4 4.3 15.9 62.3

Table 7.2.2.5.2. Distribution of business requests ( in %)

The cell with the highest frequency in each row is shaded in gray so as to draw attention to the most frequently used strategy in each type of business requests. The statistics provide strong evidence that Consequence, Negotiation, Regulation and Routine Requests have different degrees of imposition and are therefore typically realized with different linguistic strategies. The highest frequency of Routine Requests is in IMPERATIVES: 51.7%. Routine Requests are simple actions. Their lower degrees of imposition give the speaker more freedom to use directness. The large number of Routine Requests requires an efficient strategy to handle the requests. IMPERATIVES are efficient and have an acceptable level of politeness in business settings. As such, they can best fulfil the requirements of Routine Requests.

Accordingly, they become the ideal or standard strategy to realize prototypical Routine Requests.

The highest frequency of Regulation Requests is in Result: 71.4%. This is 5 times the next highest frequency in CAN, showing its absolutely predominant status. The phenomenon can be justified by the fact that RESULT has the most coercive main illocutionary (in)directness indicators, which is the best device to express the most compelling force to obey the law. As such, RESULT becomes the ideal or standard strategy to realize prototypical Regulation Requests.

The highest frequency of Negotiation Requests is in INTERMEDIARY:

36.0%.

167 Chapter 7. Directness and Indirectness of Business Requests

Negotiation Requests differ from other business requests by not having an exceptionally strong preference for a particular strategy. The frequencies of the less coercive conventional indirect strategies are close to each other in Negotiation Requests. Thanks to the entrenched relationship between their forms and functions, the illocutionary points of the less coercive conventional indirect strategies are clear.

Indirect but clear, the less coercive conventional indirect strategies are good devices to achieve bargaining goals while maintaining good relations for future cooperation.

As a result, less conventional indirect strategies become the ideal or standard approaches to realizing prototypical Negotiation Requests.

The highest frequency of Consequence Requests is in POINT-TO: 62.3%, which is 3.9 times the next highest frequency in INTERMEDIARY. This prominence can be accounted for by the fact that 56.9% of the POINT-TO comprise requests uttered by the sellers asking the buyers to do business with them. However, the buyers have no obligations to comply with such requests. Consequently, the sellers have to ask for the establishment of business relations with the least direct strategies. POINT-TO, accordingly, becomes the ideal or standard strategy to realize prototypical Consequence Requests.

The above data show that the four types of business requests have different degrees of imposition and are typically realized with different strategies. Failure to apply the ideal or standard strategies can be recognized by business practitioners: the experts of the international business email genre. Violating the conventions without good reasons might raise doubt regarding the in-group status of the writer, resulting in possible rejection of further communication, since it is risky to do business with non-professionals. The following are four groups of requests. In each one, (a) represents the ideal, standard strategy to carry out the business request expressed in the title. (b), (c) and (d) have the same requestive goal as (a) but are realized with atypical strategies:

[18] Routine Requests (a) Please offer.

168 Chapter 7. Directness and Indirectness of Business Requests

(b) Can you offer?

(c) Someone should indicate the terms of trade.

(d) You must offer.

[19] Negotiation Requests

(a) If you can match US$ 13.60 before 20th July we can consider offer.

(b) Match US$ 13.60 before 20th July.

(c) You must match US$ 13.60 before 20th July.

(d) We could offer if you could do something for us.

[20] Consequence Requests

(a) As you mentioned during the meeting, we will develop a long-term business relationship and partnership in a strategic way, which is beneficial to both of us.

(b) Establish business relations with us.

(c) You must establish business relations with us.

(d) I want you to establish business relations with me.

[21] Regulation Requests

(a) The product must be licensed by FDA.

(b) FDA license is important.

(c) I wish that your product could be licensed by FDA.

(d) Get a license for the product from FDA.

[18a] is a prototypical Routine Request performed by a buyer to a seller, which should be realized typically with IMPERATIVES. When the ideal strategies for Negotiation and Consequence Requests are used to realize a Routine Request, as in [18b] and [18c], E might be surprised by the extra indirectness: there is no need to hint at E or to question E’s ability to do something that should be done by virtue of duty. It could trigger the question: “Is the requested act more face-threatening than usual? If it is, what is happening?” The extra coerciveness of [18d] makes the request provocative, which can be damaging. The exporter is enthusiastic to make an offer, since it could lead to an order. Hence, there is no need to compel the exporter to indicate his/her price. As such, [18b], [18c] and [18d] cannot replace [18a] while power and distance remain constant.

169 Chapter 7. Directness and Indirectness of Business Requests

[19a] is a prototypical Negotiation Request realized with a conventional indirect strategy. If it is realized with IMPERATIVES or RESULT, as in [19b] and [19c], the expected tactfulness is gone. If the Negotiation Request is realized with a POINT-TO, it is hard for E to know what is requested precisely. Thus, [19b], [19c] and [19d]

cannot replace [19a] while power and distance remain constant.

[20a] is a prototypical Consequence Request realized with POINT-TO, whereby R asks E to authorize a business partnership with R. Under such circumstances, E is at his liberty to comply or not. If such a request is realized with IMPERATIVES, RESULT or WANT, it is doomed to fail. It becomes clear that [20b], [20c] and [20d]

cannot replace [20a] while power and distance remain constant.

Finally, [21a] is a prototypical Regulation Request realized with RESULT. The main illocutionary (in)directness indicators in [21b], [21c] and [21d] do not have the ability to express the compelling force of abiding by business law or regulations, and are thus unable to replace [21a] as long as power remains constant.

In short, each category of business requests has a different rank of imposition, and is carried out with different linguistic strategies. The findings point to a pattern: to accomplish Consequence, Negotiation and Routine Requests, the greater the imposition, the less direct the strategy becomes, which is consistent with Brown and Levinson’s prediction. Nevertheless, Regulation Requests are not in line with their claim. As such, Hypothesis I is partly confirmed: there is a relation between imposition and the choice of requestive strategies, but the findings do not support the claim that the greater the imposition, the more indirect the strategy becomes.

Im Dokument Requests in International Business Emails (Seite 172-177)