b. Request
The term ‘request’ has been widely used inconsistently with the term ‘directives’. As previously stated, the notion ‘directives’ can be comprehended as
efforts of speakers to get hearers do something. Some linguists consider ‘requests’ as a sub-
type of ‘directives’ Andersen, 1978; James, 1978; Schmidt, 1983 while some others even consider that ‘request’ is the ‘directives’ itself. Frasher 1975, in
Achiba, 2003 and House and Kasper 1987, in Achiba, 2003 threat verbs that denote the ‘directives’ under the essence of ‘request’. In addition, Becker 1982, in
Achiba, 2003 states that, “… ‘request’ refers inclusively to an utterance that
is intended to indicate the speaker’s desire to
regulate the behaviour of the listener that is, to get the listener to do something.
” Becker’s 1982 definition of ‘request’ strengthens the argument that it is possible
and appropriate to equate ‘directives’ as defined by Searle 1979 and Yule 1996 with the term ‘request’.
In a later study, Ervin-Tripp 1977 uses the label ‘directives’ and
divides them into six types: need statements, imperatives, embedded imperatives, permission directives, question directives, and hints. Their classifications of
‘directives’ can be seen in Table 1.
Table 1: The classification of ‘directives’ proposed by Ervin-Tripp 1977
Directive type
Neutraliz ed form
Discourse constraints Obvio
us Social
features Comply
Noncomp ly
Need statements
yes none
excuse yes
subordinates
Imperatives no
none excuse
yes subordinates
or family equals
Embedded imperatives
no agree
excuse yes
unfamiliar or diff.rank;
task outside role or
territory; expert
compliance
Permission directives
yes agree
excuse yes
superiors ? or unfamiliar
Question directives
yes answer+infe
rence answer
no noncomplian
ce possible
Hints yes
reply+infere nce
reply no
Noncomplian ce possible
or familiarity or routine
roles
Citing Ervin- Tripp’s classification of ‘directives’, Wolfson 1989, in Achiba, 2003
also equates ‘directives’ and ‘requests’. Even, Gordon and Ervin-Tripp 1984, in Achiba, 2013 adopt the same classification system above, but they prefer using the
term ‘request’ to ‘directives’. Furthermore, according to Trosborg 1995, in Soler- Jorda, 2007,
“A request is an illocutionary act whereby a speaker requester conveys to a hearer requestee that
heshe wants the requestee to perform an act which is for the benefit of the speake
r” Becker 1982, in Achiba, 2013 suggests that the term ‘request’ is more common
than the term ‘directives’.
Therefore, the term ‘request’ can be referred to what Searle 1979 and Yule 1996 label ‘directives’ i.e. an attempt of requesters to get requestees do
something. In other words, ‘request’ has a similar meaning to ‘directives’. One thing to keep in mind is the words from Trosborg 1995 who gives an indicator
saying that what is called ‘request’ is that illocutionary act which gives benefit to the speaker or the requester. Therefore, the term ‘request’ in this study is defined as
an attempt of requesters to get requestees do something which give benefits to the requestees. In the following are examples of requests.
1 Borrowing a book.
A male student : “May I borrow your math book?
I missed some classes when I was ill before”
A female student : “Sure. That’s why I didn’t see
you lately”. 2
Lending a pen A student
: “Ah.. I forgot to bring my pen.” Another student
: “Here, use mine.” A Student
: “Thanks, buddy.” 3
In a shoes shop A customer
: “Can I see that red one?” A shop staff
: “Sure, wait a moment.” A customer
: “May I give it a try?” A shop staff
: “No problem. Help yourself.”
5. Request Strategies
Kategori