文章基本信息

标题：Requests in American and British English. A contrastive multi-method analysis
本地全文：下载
作者：Carmen Maíz-Arévalo
期刊名称：Kalbotyra
印刷版ISSN：1392-1517
电子版ISSN：2029-8315
出版年度：2017
卷号：70
页码：192-197
DOI：10.15388/Klbt.2017.11207
语种：English
出版社：Vilnius University Press
摘要：This innovative study is divided into six chapters,where Ilka Flöck focuses on a comprehensive and systematic analysis of the realization of requests (and their responses) in what she terms “the two national varieties of English” – i.e. British and American. Furthermore,this quantitative-qualitative comparison relies on two different methodological tools: discourse completion tests (DCTs henceforth) and naturally occurring informal conversations. The contrast between these two data-gathering methods will also allow the author to find out whether the same speech act differs or not depending on the methodology employed to collect the data. By approaching the issue from this perspective,the author thus establishes three clear niches in the literature concerning requests,even if this speech act has been one of the most frequently studied (if not the most). The author starts by stating that she intends to look into requests and also their answers. Whilst it is true that research on requests has mostly focused on the initiating act and largely neglected its corresponding response move,this might have been motivated by the fact that responses to requests are not necessarily verbal and can often be realised by non-verbal means – i.e. simply by carrying out the requested action. Secondly,she intends to contrast two variables of the same language rather than comparing English and other languages. This,however,raises a crucial question. What exactly can be defined as the British or the American varieties? Furthermore,do these varieties differ in comparison with other dialectal or regional ones in the realization of requests and their responses? Finally,her study will contribute to test the validity of different data-gathering methods. This is probably the most helpful contribution given than,as the author claims herself on pages 2–3 of the book,there are but a handful of studies comparing the results in speech act realization obtained by different methodologies. The chapter ends by outlining the rest of the book,which is clearly structured and follows a smooth line of argumentation.