Pragmatics6:4.49I-509.
International Pragmatics Association
ASKING TO ASK: THE STRATEGTCFUNCTION
OF INDIRECT REQUESTSFOR INFORMATTON TN INTERVIEWS
Marcia Macaulay
In a recentcolumn one televisioncritic for Toronto's The Globeand Mail bemoans
the lossof "aggressive
interviewingin Canadiantelevision."He points out that "At
their best,good televisioninterviewers...have
an edge and persistencethat makes
somesubjectssquirm and sweat.For viewersthere is alwaysthe chancesomething
revealingor unexpectedwill occur and it is this elementof surprisethat is altogether
too rare in the painfully polite and well-behavedstudios of both the state
broadcaster(CBC) and the private networks." In her discussionof political
interviewson Israelitelevision,Blum-Kulka (1983)likenssuchinterviewsto a game
betweenspeakerswhich "whenthe gameis well playedby all interactants,is drama"
(146)."The goal of the interviewers,"she states,"is not necessarilyto corner the
politicianbut to get him to state his opinions and analysisof political issues,in a
mannerthat is quotable" (146). Blum-Kulka points out that political interviews
represent a distinct genre or register wherein speakers adhere to Grice's
CooperativePrinciple and engagein supportiveor non-supportivemoves largely
determinedby reinforcementor non-reinforcementof presuppositionsrepresented
in the questionsposedby interviewers.
In the data which I examine, which consist of 23 interviews done by four
interviewers,
two female,two male, three Canadian,one American, and which range
frompoliticalto topicalinterviewson both televisionand radio, interviewersemploy
an extensiverepertoire of speech acts which includes requestsfor information,
assertions,requests for confirmation, rhetorical questions, socratic questions,
clarifications,
and comments or evaluations.As one would expect, requests for
informationare the principalspeechact employedby interviewers.Moreover, most
requests
for informationemployedby interviewersare direct requests.Nonetheless,
a significantpercentageof requestsfor information are indirect. Interviewers,in
effect,ask to ask. For example, interviewerscan state directly "Tell me about
downsizing
and your viewson it, becauseit's certainlythe buzzwordon the current
economy,"
usingan imperative,but they can also employ a range of indirect forms
suchas
(1)
(2)
I want to ask you more about that festival.
I would like to know the relationshipbetweenrepressionof emotions
ah most specificallyanger and depression.
(3)
Do you really think you can live to be I meanyou're what in your late
40's closeto your 50's biologically,do you think you can live to be a
492
Marcin Macaulay
(4)
100 ah 120?
But you know now that you're not going to changethat by yourself.
It is not altogether clear what motivates these indirect forms on the part of
interviewers,since the interview is by definition an asymmetricaldiscoursewhich
privilegesthe interviewerand giveshim or her the right to ask questions.Politeness,
which is normally associatedwith indirectness,
would seemto haveiittle role to play
in the negotiation of interpersonalmeaningbetween speakers.And, indeed, it is
desirable for interviewers to be seen as tough and hard-edged in their
representationof requestsfor information. Asking to ask would seemto be a very
strangesort of requestmade by interviewers,yet indirect requestsfor information
make up between 20-36Voof all speechacts for the four interviewersI examine.
One interviewer,the most acclaimedof all Canadianinterviewers,Barbara Frum,
employs slightly more indirect forms than direct (direct requests35Va;indirect
requests 36%io).With rhetorical and socratic questionsas well as requests for
confirmation and clarification,interviewerspossessa sub-repertoireof direct and
indirect forms to effect the requestof information.
t. Indirect requests for information
Indirect requestsfor information are little analysedin the literature.In their seminal
discussionof questionsin therapeuticdiscourse,Labov and Fanshellconceptualize
questions in speechact terms as "requestsfor information,"but they do not provide
particular analysisof indirect requestsfor information,largelybecauserequestsfor
information are heavilyintegratedwith requestsfor action, and analysedeither as
information requestsor as potential indirect requestsfor action.The more indirect
indirect requestfor information is not dealt with. However,Tanz (1981) notes that
indirect requestsfor information like other indirect requestscan be produced by
invoking the preconditionsfor a direct requestfor information:"A speakerwho says,
I'd like to know wlrcn the ferry is leaving, conveysa request for information by
literally assertinghis desire to know the information.The speakercan convey the
same request by saying,Do yott know when the ferry is leaving?Literally, he queries
the hearer's ability to provide the answer.So there are other ways to convey a
request for information than by directly askingthe pertinent question"(190).
Tanz' brief discussionis suggestive.
We can formalize indirect requestsfor
information through referenceto preconditionsfor generaldirectives.Theoretically,
usingSearle(1991),we can accountfor indirectforms throughfour principal felicity
conditionsfor indirect directives:The preparatorycondition,the sinceritycondition,
the propositionalcondition and the essentialcondition.The preparatorycondition
refers to the hearer's ability to perform a given request.Tanz above gives the
example of.Do yott know when tlrc ferry is leavirtg?We can analysethis as a query
about a precondition for requests for information, but such a request is not
technicallyabout the hearer's ability to answera question. What is really being
queried is the state of knowledgeof the hearer.Hearers,however,can be queried
about their ability to answera question:
(5)
(6)
I wonder if you could comment on that for us please
Answer that questionif you can please
The strategic function of indirect requestsfor information
493
Speakers
canalsoassertthe sincerityconditionfor directives(desire,wish,want that
an actionbe performed) as an indirect meansof making a requestfor information:
(7)
I wanna talk about health carebecausethat'sone of the thingsyou've
had to tackle...
Further,speakerscan assertthe propositionalconditionfor directiveswhich concern
the performanceof a future act on the part of the hearer or his/her willingnessto
performa future act:
(8)
(9)
Will you tell me more about your tactics?
Would you begin by sketchingin the detailsof the Andes crash?
Iastly, accordingto Searle,directivescan be understoodby a hearer as indirect if
the essentialcondition is queried.Searleanalysesthe essentialcondition in terms
of efforts on the speaker'spart to get a hearer to perform a given task. This
categorylargelyconcernsreasonsgiven by the speakerfor the performance of a
speechact. He includes, then, a very general class of behaviours in this
precondition:
(10)
(11)
(12)
Dr. Chopra, I am interestedin knowingwhere there are Arathetical
alternativesfor Aids-relatedproblems.
I'm going to bring it up becauseit's still there, I am going to bring it
up becauseLucien Bouchardbringsit up every day and saysit's still
not settledbecauseof that issue.
But the questionwas why don't you like being interviewed?
In the lastthree examples,the speakersasserteither the consequences
of or reasons
for the requestfor information.Speakerscan also invoke purposeto effect indirect
requests
for information.
2. Strategicpolitenessin indirect requestsfor information
Searle's
theoryprovidesa usefuland elegantmechanismby which indirect directives
canbe understood,but, of course,it doesnot focusspecificallyon indirect requests
for information,nor does it take into considerationthe context of situation of
requesting
informationas a speechact.Searleis primarily interestedin how hearers
processspeechacts inferentially so as to understandhow a second illocutionary
meaningcan be conveyedby a speaker,that is, an indirect speechact. Labov and
Fanshell,however, focus more attention on sociolinguisticvariables and thus
speaker's
strategicchoicesin requestsfor information and thus give attention to
interpersonalfactors
suchas speaker'sand hearer'srightsand obligations.Questions
are not in any way neutral speech acts, whereby there is simply a transfer of
informationfrom one party to another.By definition,requestsfor information are
negative-facethreatening and can also threaten the positive face of the
hearer/respondent.
494
Marcia Macaula,
In his discussionon the pragmaticsof answers,Kiefer (1988) delineatesthe
"epistemic-imperative
approach"which analysesquestionsas embedded within
imperatives. The hearer is commandedto "bring it about" (imperative)that "I
know" (epistemic) (264). The request for information imposes a condition of
expectancyon the hearer who must fulfil it. Of course,there are occasionswhen
hearersindicate that the speakerdoes not have the right to ask a certain question,
that a given request for information is too personalor inappropriate under the
circumstances.In general, however, requestsfor information carry with them a
strongobligationon the part of the hearer.Blum-Kulka(1983)goesso far as to call
them "control acts":"questions[whetheror not interrogativein form] can also be
consideredcontrol acts,sinceby requiringor demandinga responsethey often carry
a strong command message[Goody, 1978)"(147).Bublitz (1981)notes further that
"It is a characteristicfeature of questionsoften overlookedthat the speakerby
askingis not only able to causethe hearer to take the floor and react in a certain
way, e.g.to answer...butthat in addition [and similarto directives]he is also exerting
his influence as to the CONTENT of the hearer'sresponse"(852).
Not only is the relationshipbetween speaker and hearer asymmetricalin
requestsfor information, but also the relationshipcan be coercive.Interviewers
often downplaythe power they have ("I just have questions"),and indeed there can
be extensivestrugglesfor control surroundingthe speechact. Intervieweescan even
attempt to reverse the roles. In one interview the actor Marlon Brando almost
achieves this betore the interviewer, Larry Kng, finally reassertshis role and
authority as interviewer: "Okay. Well, one night we'll have Marlon Brando Live.
You'll host it. I'll guest...No,
this night,you'rethe guest.Why did you chooseacting
as a career?Why did you chooseto be other people?"
In their discussionof negativeface,Brown and kvinson point out that there
are many meanslinguisticallyby which a speakercan redressthreat of negativeface
for a hearer. lndirect requestsfor informationformed by invokingthe preparatory
conditionconcerninghearer's
conditionconcerninghearer'sability,the propositional
willingness,
and the essentialconditionsconcerningcertainof the speaker'sreasons
all have the effect of redressingnegativeface.Theseare, in Labov and Fanshell's
terms, mitigating forms in that they take into considerationthe hearer's
dispreferencefor impingement.By queryingthe hearer's ability or willingnessto
answer,or by providing the hearer with reasonsfor making the request,a speaker
can mitigate imposition upon a hearer.For example,in an interviewwith Margaret
Thatcher, the Canadianinterviewer,Barbara Frum, makesthe following request:
(13)
Will you let me ask two more quick questions?
Frum wants to continue what has been a very tough interview with Thatcher;
Thatcher has grown impatient. Frum therefore redressesThatcher'snegativeface
by literally asking to ask. In this requestfor information,there is absenceof
coercion.Thatcher is tree to say 'no'. Frum also minimizesthe imposition by
minimizing her goal. She has only two questionsand further they are "quick."The
threat to Thatcher's negative face is small, and so this indirect request for
information as a politenessform has the strategicpurposeon the interviewer'spart
of enabling the interview to continue.The indirect requestfor information serves
a phatic function of keepingthe channelsof communicationopen at a time when
The stategic function of indirect requestsfor infomtation
495
thereis threat that they may close.
A speakercan also redressthreat to negativeface by querying a hearer's
beliefor knowledgestate.Tanz aboveprovidesthe exampleDo you know when the
fery it leavingto illustrate an indirect requestfor information.According to Tanz,
this requestqueriesthe hearer'sability to answerthe request.However, querying
a hearer'sknowledgeor belief state is not the same as queryinga hearer'sability.
Speaker's
can invoke the preparatoryconditionfor directivesto perform an indirect
requesttor information:
(14)
Can you explain the difference'/
Sucha fcrm is only marginallypolite, because,althoughit redressesnegativeface,
it hasthe potential to threaten positiveface through the conventionalimplicature
that the hearer may not have the ability to "explainthe difference."Invoking the
preparatorycondition as a means of performing indirect requestsfor information
is potentiallyproblematic,sincethe hearer may lose face if his or her ability is put
into question.Queryinga hearer'sbelief or knowledgestate,however,has far less
potentialto threaten positiveface:
But do you think this is a justice denied,this is a Donald Marshall
caseatler all this time I
(16) Do you know if the SovietUnion or the USA seriouslyconsidered
dropping nuclear weapons on any country - for example, on
Alghanistan,Vietnam,or Korea?
(15)
Suchhighly conventionalindirect requestsfor information invoke the existential
statusof the information.When a speakerqueriesor assertsa hearer'sbelief state
(Do yott thhtk, you think), s/he is, as it were, establishingthe existenceof the
informations/he needs, desires,or wants. For example, to the request Do yott
thiltklknowthe hearer can respondeither 'yes' or 'no'. Such requestsconstrainthe
hearerno further.unlessthe hearerchoosesto elaborate.
In suchindirectrequests,a preconditionprior to that of the hearer'sability
to respondis being queried, since the speaker is first ascertainingwhether the
hearerhas the desired information. If the hearer has the information requested,
thenit followsthat s/he can answer.On the one hand, such an indirect request for
informationavoidsputting the hearer on the spot as well as further challengingthe
hearer's
abilityand so positiveface,while on the other,the socialconstraintsof the
interviewas an asymmetricaldiscourseobliges the hearer to provide the
information,
realizedeither as "knowledge"or "opinion."Suchindirectrequestsfor
informationare highlypolite forms servingthe interestsof both the intervieweeand
the interviewer.For the interviewee, threat to negative and positive face is
minimized;for the interviewer,suchindirect forms serveas promptswhich provoke
the intervieweeinto "say[ing]more."
As well as queryinghearer'sbelief state,speakerscan also politely request
informationby representingtheir own mental statesas in I was wondeing I have
beenaskingmyselfwherebythey realizeboth the roles of speakerand hearer,while
assigning
the hearer to a new role akin to listener:
496
Marcia Macaulay
(17)
I waswonderingwhat you think of CalvinKlein's designsas compared
to what other designersare putting on the runwaythesedays?
Searlewould analysethis indirect request in terms of invocationof the essential
condition; that is, it counts as an attempt to get the hearer to perform an action.
But, in this example the action is only being hinted at. The interviewercould ask
directlyAre Calvin Klein's desigrtsbetteror worsetlnn what other desigtersareputting
on the ntnway thesedays? Such a requestfor information would require that the
interviewee,Grace Mirabella, provide an answerin the form of an evaluation of
Calvin Klein. Such a requestwould be both negativeand positiveface threatening
since the interviewee would be required to make a potentially controversial
judgment; that is, such a request presumesthat Mirabella has the ability to make
this judgment and further requires she must make it known to others and
specificallythe interviewer,PamelaWallin.
Of course,Wallin could also have askedDo you thir* Calvin Klein's designs
arex as compared...2.
This requestwould alsobe polite. Why then does she choose
an evenmore mitigatingform, which is highlyindirect and technicallydoesnot make
a requestof the intervieweeat all, exceptinferentially?Although Grace Mirabella
is a fashionwriter who makesa livinganalysingdesigners'work,
she is beingdrawn
in by Wallin to make a controversialassessment
of Calvin Klein. To prompt or
encourageher interviewee Mirabella to make that assessment,Wallin virtually
removes all threat to negativeface. Mirabella is made aware of a need on the
speaker'spart, but there is no linguisticcoercionfor her to answer,sincetechnically
she is not being asked a question.This is not the same as if Wallin had said 1
wantlneedto know wlnt yott think of Calvin Klein which would invoke the sincerity
condition and be highly face-threateningfor Mirabella. Wallin's need for the
information can only be arrived at by conversationalimplicature(relevance)which
permitsMirabella the freedomto respondor not to respond,sincethe implicature
can be taken up or not taken up accordingto Mirabella'swishes.
Indirect requestsfor informationwhich minimizethreat to the negativeface
of the intervieweein my data are "politeness"forms,but politenessis not the main
goal or issue. Interviewerschoosecertain of the indirect requestsfor information
to reduce threat to the interviewee to ensure that the interview will proceed
smoothly or continue. In the exampleabovewhere the interviewerBarbara Frum
literally asks to ask of Margaret Thatcher, she does so at a point where the
interview is breaking down and where to continue she needs the cooperation of
Thatcher.Thus she minimizesher impositionupon Thatcher,who consentsto be
further interviewed.The questionswhichfollow,however,are highlyconfrontational:
"Do you ever allow yourselfself-doubt?""Do you like being called Iron Lady?".
These requestsfor information are quite obviouslythreatening to positive face.
then, Frum usesan indirectrequestredressingthe hearer'snegative
Strategically,
face, only to set up further requestswhich have no such redress.
When PamelaWallin asksher intervieweeMichael Harris in (15), "But do
you think this is a justice denied,this is a Donald Marshallcaseafter all this time?",
she strategicallyavoids any embarrassmentto Harris should he not be able to
answer her question; however, she also makes a request which is positively
conduciveand carries the implicature that Harris does think that "this is a justice
denied, this is a Donald Marshall case after all this time." Moreover. this
The strategic function of indirect requestsfor information
497
conventional
indirect requestfor information carriesanother implicature,that the
intervieweewill "saymore." By virtue of the Maxim of Relevance,Wallin expects
her intervieweenot only to agreewith the presuppositionconveyedby her request
but to expandor elaborateon his reasonsfor doing so.
Wallin's highly indirect request for information in (17), "I was wondering
whatyou think of Calvin Klein's designsas comparedto what other designersare
puttingon the runway thesedays?"invoking the essentialcondition,also functions
as a prompt for more talk. By redressingMirabella's face so extensivelythat she
doesnot technicallyrequest information of her, but of herself, Wallin in fact is
promptingMirabella to evaluateCalvin Kein's designs.The more controversialor
problematica request for information may be for an interviewee, the more
delicatelyor more indirectly a questioncan be put. Redressingnegative face by
goingso far as to not technicallythreatenit, as Wallin doeswhen shewonderswhat
Mirabella thinks rather than asking her directly, has the strategic purpose of
encouraging
the intervieweeto open up and talk about a subjectwhich otherwise
mightnot be taken up at all.
The interpersonalmeaningor roles betweenthe interviewerand interviewee
are completelyaltered by such indirect requests.The interviewer momentarily
suspendshis/her right to request and rather than obliging the interviewee to
respond,
assigns
the intervieweethe more equalrole of co-conversationalist
who can
respondat will, or meet the needs of the interviewerat will. The conventionsof
generalconversationare brought into the contextof situationof the interview and
thereis the momentaryillusion that conversationexistsbetweenequals.But this is
only an illusion, since the interviewer'sreal motive is to get the interviewee to
respondto highly face threateningrequests.These indirect forms all function as
promptsto encouragethe intervieweeto "saymore" in the interview.The concern
of the intervieweris not really politenessbut the interview itself and the strategic
gettingof information and talk.
3. Provocationin indirect requestsfor information
Not all indirectrequestsfor information are mitigatingor negativeface redressing.
Interviewersalso employ conventional indirect requests for information which
invokethe sinceritycondition. In such indirect requeststhe speaker'swishes or
needsare foregrounded. Such indirect requestshave the effect not of diminishing
the powerof the interviewerbut of enhancingit:
(18)
I want to hear your view about Nato and and what in fact the
membersof Nato are not doing
(19)
I wannatalk abouthealthcarebecausethat'sone of the thingsyou've
had to tackle
or
By invokingthe sincerityconditionto effect an indirect requestfor information, the
interviewersignalsas well as signifieshis or her role as interviewerin the discourse.
Suchindirect requestsserve as markers of both the interviewer'sfunction and
power, specificallythe power to choose and direct topic. Whereas in normal
498
Marcia Macaulay
conversationtopic is negotiatedbetweenco-conversationalists,
topic in interviews
is largelycontrolledby the interviewer.This fact of the discourseis overtly signalled
by the interviewer'suse of indirect requestswhich invoke the sinceritycondition.
In (18), the interviewercould easilyhave chosento say What do you think
about Nato and what in fact the membersof ltlato are not doing. Such a direct
requestrequiresthat the intervieweeprovide his "view" of Nato as is the case in
(18), but the constraintsof his answerare very dilferent.In (18), the interviewer
foregroundsinterpersonalmeaningbetweenherself and the interviewee,Andreas
Pompandreou.Part of the explicitmeaningof the utteranceis the speaker'sright
to make the request as well as the hearer'sobligationto answer."1" realizes
thematicinformationin the utterance,whereas"yourview aboutNato" realizesnew
information and by definition contrasts"your view" with that of others which is old
information. The interviewer,by linguisticallyrealizing her right to request,
constrainsthe hearer not simply to "saymore" but to say somethingwhich is new
and thus salientfor the interviewand the audiencelistening.Though askingto ask
and by asking to ask, the interviewer reinforceshis/her power and obliges the
intervieweeto provide the desiredinformation.Within the discourse,the threat to
negativeface which suchindirect requestsproduceis not seenas inappropriate,but
rather as appropriate and acceptablesincenormativerolesbetweenthe interviewer
and intervieweeare reinforced.
4. Assertions as provocationin interviews
In the interview, as in exposition,new infbrmation is at a premium. More than
anything else, new information constitutesdesired goods. As indicated above,
interviewers can invoke the sincerity condition for requestsfor information to
constrain intervieweesto provide such information,but their repertoire, their
competence,would be extremelylimited if this were the only means availableto
them.The conventionalindirect
requeststhat I haveexaminedabovefunctioneither
as prompts or provocations.Provocation,however,is ironicallylessmarked in the
asymmetricalinterpersonalrelationsbetweenthe interviewerand the interviewee.
This can be achievedby askingtheoretically"toughquestions,"
but what exactlyis
the mechanismfor askingsuchquestions?
Tough questions,the art of provocation
in interviews,are realized as much through indirect requestsfor information as
through direct requests.Such indirect requestsare not formed conventionally
through the invocationof felicityconditions,but throughassertions
of what Labov
and Fanshellrefer to as A-,B-, and D-events.Strategicassertionof suchevents,as
indirect requestsfor information,constitutemore than even direct requeststhe
interviewer's linguistic means of provoking new and salient information from
intervieweesand thus servingthe interestsof the interview.Rather than querying
the hearer/interviewee's
state of belief or opinion as in conventionalindirect
requestsfor information ascertainingthe existenceof information (Do you think,
krtow, believe), the speaker/interviewercan assert his/her own. The hearer's
response,although still technicallyan "answer,"is more accuratelytermed response
sinceaboveall what is requiredis a responseto the assertionwhich is made by the
speaker.
Labov and FanshelldefineA-Eventsas eventsor informationknown only to
The strategic function of indirect requestsfor informction
499
the speaker,whereasB-Eventsare those known only to the hearer. D-Events are
disputablebetweenthe speakers. A-,B-, and -D Events can all be assertedby an
interviewerrather than making a direct requestfor information or a conventional
indirectrequestbasedon a felicity condition.Theseassertionsallow interviewersto
introducecontroversialand often personally delicate topics into the discourse
withoutformally appearingto ask tough questionsat all and as such they are not
dissimilarto prompts of the I wonder,I ask myselftype; however, becausepositive
facerather than negativeface concernsare raisedby theseindirect forms, they are
provocativerather than prompting. Standard for such indirect requests for
informationis a move that can best be termed a "set-up,"usually reahzedby an
assertionor seriesof assertions,the requestitself, and then possiblya follow-up,
whichis most often realizedas a reiteration or reformulationof the request.
(20)
Would you you be offended if I told you my feeling as I read the
story? And ah this is really awkwardbecausethe man who wrote the
book never makes judgements.But I thought in some way that a
human being has in someway to be a bastardto survive.That saints
maybe don't make it.
This requestfor information is taken from an interview between the Canadian
interviewerBarbara Frum and one of the survivorsof a plane crash in the Andes
whowereforced to resort to cannibalism.Frum's first move is to set up her indirect
requestfor information by initially querying her interviewee'sfeelings.This first
move is a conventionalindirect request for information except that the felicity
conditionswhich pertain concern the hearer's positive face ("Would you be
offended")rather than negativeface (Wouldyoumind). Suchan indirect form would
seemto have politenessas a principal concern. Frum is, in fact, askingto ask and
she is certainly being polite. She follows this conventionalindirect request for
informationwith an evaluativeassertionwhich again indicatesher unwillingnessto
attackthe interviewee'spositiveface. She contrastsherselfwith anotherjournalist
who does not make judgements and indicates her own awkwardnessand so
reluctanceto do so. Twice, then, she redressesher interviewee'spositive face.
However,such politenessis entirely strategicbecausewhat follows, the principal
moveas an indirect requestfor information,althoughtechnicallyan assertionof a
D-Event,carriesa B-Event implicaturewhich seriouslythreatensthe positive face
of the interviewee:"But I thought that a human being has in some way to be a
bastardto survive."Labov and Fanshellarguethat assertionsof D-Events have the
functionof gainingagreementor disagreementby the hearer. The purpose of this
indirectrequestfor information is not to gain agreementor disagreement,but to
provokea responsefrom the interviewee.
Prior to this request, Frum has several times explored with two of the
survivors
whether the experiencehas changedthem in any way ("Now that you're
backdo you think you're the same personyou were before this happened?""Are
yourinsideschanged"),but has receivedminimal or low-keyresponsewhich hardly
evokesthe ordealwhich thesemen went through. Her assertionof a D-Event which
carriessuch a strong B-Event implicature, that by surviving their ordeal in the
Andesthe two men are bastards,seryesas a highlyprovocativemeansof gettingthe
newand salientinformation Frum wants for her interview. Her provocationworks
500
Marcia Macaulay
becauseit threatens or challengesthe positivetace of her two interviewees,who
respondby literally askingFrum, "Do you really think we're bastards?"Technically,
Frum has not assertedor asked this at all. but what she has assertedcarries such
a strong B-Event implicature that her intervieweesare forced to examine the
significanceof their survival not only for themselvesbut for every human being.
Frum's purpose is not initially to redressthe positiveface of her intervieweesonly
then to threaten it, but to provoke them into response,and indeedto provoke them
into thought and analysisand so get a good interview.Frum's linguisticbehaviour
goes well beyond that of a game between herself and her interviewees.Through
such very complex indirect requestsfor information, Frum elevatesthe interview
into a truly investigativediscourseconcernedwith understandingthe truth.
Although Frum's indirect requestfor informationaboveis formed by means
of an assertionof a D-Event, its real provocativepower comes from its B-Event
implicature. Assertions of B-Events are analysedby Labov and Fanshell as
"requestsfor confirmation." Such assertionscan function in this way, but when so
are usually marked by an high rising terminal intonation contour. One of the four
interviewers I examined, a Jewish American male, is strongly predisposed to
realizing requests for information as declarativein form with an interrogative
contour:
(2I)
(22)
His life is a success?
And it was instant?You knew him, you like him, when you first met
him?
The first utterance,which is a direct requestto Margaret Thatcher about Michail
Gorbachev, requestsThatcher to give her opinion of Gorbachev'scareer. In the
secondutterance,I-arryKing, the interviewer,asksThatcher about her feelingsfor
Ronald Reagan,while in the third, "You knew him, you like him, when you first met
him?", by assertinga B-Event known only to Thatcher,requestsconfirmationof his
proposition.In effect, King is saying,'have I got it right, yclu liked Ronald Reagan
instantlywhen you first met him?'. However,in the requestfor information which
immediately precedesthis in the interview,King also assertsa B-Event, but this
does not have the force of a requestfor confirmation:
(23)
But you can have the same opinions and the same goals, but that
doesn't mean you have to like someone.And the two of you had
genuine affection.
The first utteranceis an assertionwhich seryesto set up the the indirect requestfor
information which follows. There is no interrogativecontour accompanyingthis
utterance and so King is not simply askingThatcher to confirm what he has said.
Instead,King assertsa B-Event aboutwhich only Thatchershouldhaveinformation.
He does not want Thatcher to say 'yes,we had genuineaffection,'rather he wants
to provoke Thatcher to talk about her feelingsfor Reagan.Even when positive as
(23) is, indirect requestsfor informationas assertionsof B-Eventsare highlypositive
face-threateningbecause the speaker assertsknowledgewhich only the hearer
should have. There is a sensein which such assertionsalso threaten negativeface
since although there is no impositionupon the hearer,there is nonethelessa form
The strategic function of indirect requestsfor information
501
of violation of the hearer's boundaries or sense of internal self. When such
are negativeas above,they functionmuch like challengesand so provoke
assertions
as a form of defense.However,when positive,their function would seem
response
to be to provoke revelation, since they provide a means by which the
can reveal aspectsof himiherself which enhancethe social self.
hearer/interviewee
positiveface and allow the intervieweeto boast.
reinforce
they
In this sense,
Interviewerscan alsoassertA-Eventsas a meansof making indirect requests
for information.By assertinghis or her own beliefs,feelingsor even dilemmas,a
speakercan provoi" u r".ponse of solidarity('I'm with you') or problem-solving('I
your problem and can/will help you'):
recognize
(24)
You look in the mirror and you think'that's not me' but this person
who is supposedto be a professionalis tellingyou that you look great
and you buy it and it hangsin your closet.
In the first request,the interviewer, Pamela Wallin, presentsto Grace Mirabella a
problemwhich is faced by many female consumers,havingbought an item which is
ieallynot suitablefor them. Wallin employsa you of solidarity,and so represents
her own A-Event as one experiencedby women in general.Through this A-Event
Wallinrepresentsto Mirabella a common experienceas a problem, thus provoking
from Mirabella a solution:
(25)
Hangs in the closet.I guessthat's not easy.I know it's not easy.You
have to really keep sort of watching around you and being very aware
of yourself. And and not doing things that will make you
uncomfortable.I think being uncomfortableis maybe the key word.
Regardlessof what anybodysaysto you. And maybeyou do look very
nice in it but you're not comfortable.So go with your gut.
Mirabellainitially chimesin with her interviewerby repeatingthe interviewer'slast
remarks,"Hangsin the closet."She then evaluates,"I guessthat's not easy.I know
it's not easy."Her first comment,"I guessthat's not eas]," representsan assertive
which marks distancebetweenherselfand the "you"of Wallin's assertion.
evaluation
Her secondcomment, "I know it's not eas/," marks Mirabella's transition from
evaluatingan A-Event to that of an A-B Event, since she asserts her own
of the same proposition, "Hangs in the closet."Wallin's experience
experienCe
beiomesMirabella's experienceand so provokesfrom Mirabella the need for a
solution.Responseas solution follows immediatelyfrom Mirabella'sown embrace
of the A-B Event: "You have to really keep sort of watchingaround you and being
very awareof yourself...."Of course,Wallin could have asked What does one do
whin one has bought an item and it never gets wom or How do you deal with
who talk you into buyingthingsyou don't wQnt,but she does not. Instead,
salespersons
sheprovokesa responseof solidarityfrom Mirabella and thus a much more heartfelt ind salientsolution than a direct requestcould afford. Mirabella's languageis
idiomaticand impassioned,"sogo with your gut,"rather than beingauthoritativeand
neutral. All the provocationsformed by assertionsact to involve the interviewee
emotionallyas well as intellectually in the discourseand so enhancewhat we could
call the "so-what" factor in interviewing.In this way the interview becomes a
502
MarciaMacaulay
meaningful exchangebetween the interviewer and the interviewee,rather than
simply a game played befween them.
5. Two interviews with Margaret Thatcher
Two of the interviewersI examine,one femaleand one male, interuiewedMargaret
Thatcher. These interviewsprovide a locusfor examiningthe role and function of
indirect requestsfor information in the interview.One interviewwas done by Larry
King, an American interviewer, who continues to have one of the top-rated
interview programs in North America; the other was done by Barbara Frum, a
Canadian televisioninterviewer,for the CanadianBroadcastingCompany's(CBC)
nightly news program. The profiles of theseinterviewersrevealvery different styles
of interviewing. Of all speech acts in the respectiveThatcher interviews, King
employs45Vodirect requestsand 27Voindirect requests,while Frum employs27Vo
direct requestsand 42Voindirect requests.The percentilesare almost entirely the
reverseof one another.Of all speechactsin all interviews,King employs40%odirect
requestsand Zlo/aindirect requests,while Frum employs35%odirect requestsand
36Voindirect requests.King employsindirectrequestsslightlylessthan half the time
that he employsdirect requests,whereasFrum employsdirect and indirect requests
with approximatelythe same frequency.However,in her Thatcher interview there
is a marked increasein frequencyfrom 36Voto 42%. King's interviewingstrategy
with Thatcher is consistentwith his generalinterviewingstyle,whereasFrum varies
her strategicchoicesby increasingher use of indirectrequestsand decreasingher
use of direct requests. The questionof courseis why.
The interviewersbegin both interviewsby askingThatcher why she got into
politics. However, their approachesare quite different.
King interview
LK:
MT:
LK:
MT:
LK:
MT:
LK:
MT:
And how much of "all" is told? When they say,"Tell it all," Lady Thatcher,
how much have you told'l
I've told quite a a lot, becauseI had to tell it to make it live. I had to say
who said what and the kinds of arguments we had between heads of
governmentand headsof state.Thingswhich concernsecurity,of course,are
never told.
When, along the route to your own rise, did you say to yourself,"I want to
be prime minister-"
Oh, never.
"-l want to lead the country"'l
Never.
How did it happen/
I can tell you exactly how it happened.I became an ordinary member of
Parliament.I went and sawsomeof thosescenesin Parliament,the debates.
You know how noisythey are. I thought,"Thank goodness,I'm on the back
benches,an ordinary member and not a minister.I don't think I could take
this, some of the cat-callingthey have."Then, I becamea cabinet minister,
and that seemedall right. And then we lost that election,and we had lost
The strategic function of indirect requestsfor infomtation
503
several,and so Keith Josephand I decidedto go right back to the drawing board
on principles,followedby policy,followedby detaileddecisions.And I had expected,
whenTed Heath put up again as leader of the party, that Keith Joseph, as the
leaderof this particular group, would stand.And he came into my study one day
andsaid,"Margaret,I just can't stand.I don't think I can take that kind of criticism
and that kind of pressure."And almost immediately,I said, "Look, Keith, if you
won'tstand,I will. someonewho holds our views has got to stand,so that we have
a chanceof putting them into action."
LK: So, had he stood that day and said so, you wouldn't haveMT: I wouldhavebeen his most loyallieutenant,and I wouldn'thavebeen prime
minister.We still had to go through, of course,a generalelection.
In thisexchange,
all but one of Larry King'srequestsfor information are direct. He
onlyindirectrequest,"So, had he stood that day and said so, you wouldn't have-"
asserts
a B-Event and would act as a provocationfor Thatcher to tell a less selfservingaccount were King not interrupted by Thatcher. King's first two direct
requests
are closedquestionsaswell asbeingpositivelyconducive("When...didyou
sayto yourself,'l want to be prime minister-"'),but Thatcher respondsfirst by
interruptingKing and secondlyby cancellingthe proposition which his request
conveys,
that there was a time when Thatcher choseto become prime minister is.
Thatcherchoosesto deny any agencyfor herselfin this interview. She avoids any
representation
of herself as making a decisionto become prime minister.
King follows Thatcher'sdenial of agency,"Never,"with an open question,
"How did it happen?"which has no conduciveforce positive or negative and so
permitsThatcherto render an accountquite unconstrained
by any other view but
herown.Thatcherpresentsherselfas someoneto whom thingshappen,a patient
ratherthanan agent.Initiallyhappyto be a back benchernot havingto go into the
fray,her first move up the ladder is accountedfor simply as an event in time: "And
then,I becamea junior minister."The and employedby Thatcheris simplyan and
of sequence.
Magically,for no apparentcausalreason,Thatcher"becamea junior
minister."Grammatically,all that Thatcher marks is a change of state, but no
explicitcause,reasonor motive is given for this change. We don't know why she
becomesa junior minister, any more than we know why she becomes a
backbencher.
Thatchercontinuesthis renderingof herselfas a patient until she represents
agencyas thrust upon her by the refusalof her colleagueKeith Josephto run for
the head of the ConservativeParty. Thatcher reports Keith's speech to her,
"Margaret,
I just can't stand. I don't think I can take that kind of criticismand that
kindof pressure."According to Thatcher,Keith presentshimself as inadequateto
the task.Thatcher then reports her own speech,"And almost immediately,I said,
'Lnok,Keith, you won't stand, will.
if
I
Someonewho holds our views has got to
stand,sothat we havea chanceof putting them into action."In this narrative clause,
Thatcherrevealsnot motive, not cause,but result.The and sheemploysis an and
of result,"And almost immediately,I said."Grammatically,Keith's speechrealizes
action,while Thatcher's speech realizesthe result of that action, the two being
linkedby an and of result. Thatcher comes to the role as a result of a failure of
nerveon JosephKeith's part. Thatcher'sagencythen is a limited one, sinceit is
represented
by her as being reactiverather than proactive.
504
MarciaMacaulay
l-atry King does attempt to provoke another version of this story from
Thatcher through his assertion of her B-Event as an indirect request for
information. His request,"So,had he stood that day and saidso,you wouldn't have" is negativelyconducive,that is, King representsThatcher'sexperienceback to her
as a means of provoking from her a different response,new information,from that
which she has provided.He challengesher through this assertionof a B-Event, but
in the processof so doing is interrupted by Thatcherwho goeson to complete her
very self-servingrepresentation.Thatcher, therefore, has been able to use her
interview with King to representherself not as an ambitioushard-nosedpolitician
who as a minister was known as "Thatcherthe Snatcher,"and as Prime Minister as
"The Iron Lady," but as a noble and brave women who had the courage of her
convictionsto enter the fray when otherswould not. There is only one attempt by
King to counter this convenientrepresentationwhich Thatcher provides,and which
amountsto little more than public relations.
Barbara Frum's interview with Thatcher contrastsmarkedly with that of
King's.
Frum interview
BF:
MT:
BF:
MR:
BF:
Mrs. Thatcher, until you came to power most politicians in the Western
world thought they had to crowd the centre of the road, you stakedout that
hard bold ground on the right, and the electoratein Britain has bought it
utterly. How do you accountfor that?
Becausewe had clear goalsand clear ways of getting there. I think people
much prefer that. They like to know what we want to do, why we want to do
it, how we are going to do it. That's what we set out to do.
How far are you going to take them becausein everythingthat you've said
there's a senseof crusade,as though you want to changethe way Britons
think even act and ah live and frankly since coming to Canada there's a
sensetoo that you want to stiffen all of our backbones,Canadiansincluded.
Oh, I am just speakingof my experienceand from thingsthat I have seengo
wrong on the internationalstagebecausepeople have tried somehowto go
round the rules and the lawsaren't suspendedjust becausepoliticianswould
like them to be or like to get round them. Ah in Britain I think we had
something which we'd not had in Canada which explains several social
socialistgovernments.The essenceof Socialismis that you surrenderquite
a bit of power over your own life to the state - well we all do that to some
extent but of courseit went much further. Ah you pay very high taxes and
they wish to uh take um even highertaxesbecausethey think that politicians
can spend money better than the people can spend it. The more you take
away the less there is for private industryand that's where the creation of
wealth comes. So you have to establishvery clear limits on the role of
governmentand really you know politiciansI think shouldsometimesjust be
a little bit more modest about their abilitiesthan they are. We can't run
everythingand we shouldn'ttry.
Mrs. Thatcher,though,you'regoingfor attitudes.You're trying to changethe
way people think about their role in life. It's almostsometimesas though you
think by your own resolveyou can inspire people to be different. You're
The strategic function of indirect requestsfor information
505
you're still inside if I can suggestthat very bright green grocer'sdaughter
MT: Well
BF: who made herself a chemist,who made herself a tax lawyer, made herself
Prime Minister, anybodycan.
MT: I don't really quite recognizewhat you are saying.I believe certain things
verystrongly.I believethat we will gain towardsa way of life in which people
were constantlylooking to the stateto solvetheir problemsand to do things
for them. You know when the state does everythingfor you it will soon take
everythingfrom you. You'll then haveno basisfor personalfreedom,political
freedom,nor economic freedom. I saw it go much too far and I think it
wouldhavegone even further had I not won that 1979election- too far ever
to pull it back. I said in my speechtoday the state must never substitutefor
personalresponsibility,nor private initiative.
BF: But there'sa message.
MT: There is a message.
BF: But you said
MT: There'sa message,yes indeed
BF: You hate softness,you hate slacknessdon't you?
Themeor topic in Barbara Frum's discourseis "you,"that is, Thatcher herself. All
of Frum'srequestsfor information focus careful attention on Thatcher'sattitudes
andbehaviours.
Indeed,shecharacterizes
Thatcher'spoliticalactivityas a "crusade,"
andby extensionThatcheras someonewho wantsto changehow other people think
andbelieve.In grammaticalterms,Thatcheris portrayedover and over again as an
activeagent of change.Frum's first request for information is direct, neutral in
termsof conduciveness,
and queries an explanationfor Thatcher's successas a
politiciantaking up the right on the political spectrum,"How do you account for
that?" As in the King interview, Thatcher chooses to evade any personal
responsibility
or agencyto explainthe embraceof the right by the British electorate:
"Because
we had clear goalsand clear waysof getting there. I think people much
preferthat."The we of solidaritywhich Thatcher employscancelsthe focus Frum
hasplacedon Thatcher herself. Also, grammatically,"we had clear goals"realizes
notagencynor patiencybut simplyattribution,"cleargoals"being attributedto "we."
Equally,"people much prefer that" realizesbehaviouror experience. Thatcher's
constructions
avoid action on anyone'spart. Thatcher does not answer Frum's
question.Moreover,she deflectsthematicattentionawayfrom herselfas an agent
havingany affect on other people'sattitudesand behaviours.
Frum's responseis simply to return thematic focus back upon Thatcher,
"Flowfar are you [m.e.] going to take them becausein everythingthat you've [m.e.]
saidthere's a sense of crusade,as though you [m.e.] want to change the way
Britain'sthink even and act and ah live?" In this speechact, Frum employsanother
directrequestfor information which nonethelessimplicatesthat Thatcher herself
hasgonetoo far and is without awarenessof the extent of her own actions.This is
followedby the tirst of Frum's indirect requestsfor information,"and frankly since
comingto Canadathere'sa sensetoo that you want to stiffen all of our backbones,
Canadians
included."The and employedby Frum is an and of evaluationwhich
givesfocus to the entire clause which realizes new information in the overall
utterance.
In this indirect requestfor informationFrum assertsa B-Event,"that you
506
MarcinMacaulay
want to stiffen all of our backbones,Canadian'sincluded,"to provokeThatcher first
into a recognitionof her own extremism,secondinto recognitionof her agencyor
responsibility,and third and most salienttor the discourseinto respondingto this
agentivecharacterization,which has the force of a challenge.
Thatcher respondsby again not taking up the question:"Oh, I am just
speaking of my experience and from things I have seen go wrong on the
international stagebecausepeople have tried somehowto go round the rules and
just becausepoliticianswould like them to be or like to
the laws aren't suspended
get round them." Thatcher, in fact, violatesthe Maxim of Relevance,but not for
purposes of an implicature, but simply to deflect attention away from herself as
thematicsubjectand onto "people"who have"triedsomehowto go round the rules."
There is no sensein which Thatcher functionsas a cooperativeinterlocutor. She
doesnot simply resistFrum's question;sheignoresit entirely,and in so doing she
challengesFrum's authorityas interviewer,and indeedturns the discourseon its
h e ad.
Frum respondsto this challengeof her own role by employingher second
indirect requestfor information,"Mrs. Thatcher,though,you're going for attitudes.
You're trying to changethe way people think about their role in life." Here again
Frum assertsa B-Event which clearlyrepresentsThatcher as agentive.And turther
Frum escalatesher provocationof Thatcher by representingto Thatcher her own
"You're still insideif I can suggest
motivationalschemawhich is clearlyclass-based,
that very bright green grocer'sdaughterwho made herself a chemist,who made
herself a tax lawyer,made herselfPrime Minister, anybodycan." In contrastto the
very self-servingcharacterizationThatcherprovidesof herselfin her interview with
Larry Kng, Frum representsThatcher to herselfas self-made,realizingboth roles
of agent and patient.Thatcherhas made herselfPrime Minister;the role has not
simply been thrust upon her by an accidentof circumstance.
She is an agent of
marked propensity.
Thatcher for the first time is completely unable to deflect or avoid
provocation.She must respond.She doesso initially by stating,"I don't really quite
recognizewhat you are saying,"however,all thematicutterancesin this responseare
realizedby "L" For the first time in the interview,Thatchertalks about herself,and
as well she explicitly and categoricallymarks herself as agent,"I [m.e.] saw it go
much too far and I [rn.".] think it would have gone even further had I [m.e.] not
won that 1979election."Gone is the we of solidarity;Thatchernow explicitlycredits
herselfwith stoppingthe advancementof Socialismin Great Britain and tor causing
the ConservativeParty to win a crucial election.
What Frum achievesthrough her strategic use of indirect requests for
information is far more interestingand salient as information than that in King's
interview with Thatcher.As provocations,Frum's indirect requestsfor information
causeThatcher to reveal somethingof herselfin terms of her own motivations,
ambitions,concernsetc. In contrast,Thatcheris made to revealnothingof herself
in her interviewwith Krng.Where Thatcheris made to acknowledgeher own agency
in Frum's interviewwhich reliesheavilyon indirectrequests,she comesto no such
precipiceof understandingin her exchangewith King, who relies much more on
direct requests,and often open requestswith little conduciveforce. King's style is
convivialwhereasFrum's is exploratoryand at times confrontational.
Apart from her use of assertionsas indirect requests,Frum also reinforces
The strategic function of indirect requestsfor infomtation
507
her own status as interviewer several times in her interview with Thatcher by
invokingthe sinceritycondition:"I I want to askyou so many things.I want to hear
whatyou think about public works but I know we are under time pressures...""I
want to raise a whole other question." Frum's increasein her normal use of
indirectrequestscan be explainedby Thatcher'sclear skill in avoidingor deflecting
toughquestions.Frum's use of indirect requestsis increasedby six percent overall.
fu I haveargued,certain of these requests,invocationsof hearer-orientedfelicity
conditions,
function as prompts rather than provocationsand so factor in redressto
the hearer'snegativeface as a strategicmeansof encouragingthe hearer's as coconversationalist
to "say more," and of course say more that is interesting.The
provocative
forms which rely more on useof assertionsas indirect requestsnot only
do not redressthe hearer'snegativeface but also have the function of threatening
the hearer'spositive face even when positive in denotation and so provoking
response
as new information. This is preciselywhat happensin Frum's interview
with Thatcherand which makesthis interviewfar more interestingand informative
thanthat of King.
Conclusion
of the calibreof Frum's and other seriousjournalistswho employ direct
Interviewing
and indirect requests strategicallygoes beyond being simply a game. Frum's
provocations
causeThatcher to acknowledgelinguisticallyher own nature and her
ownmotives.Somethingabout Thatcher is revealedin Frum's interview,whereas
it is concealedin King's. Such interviewsdraw back the curtain and allow both the
interviewerand the intervieweeto gain insightor knowledgein the processof the
exchange.
The more skilledthe interviewer,the more possibilitythere is not only for
dramabut also for understandingand for communication.Asking to ask is a
significant
aspectof an interviewer'scompetence.Indirect requestsfor information
are not by definition politenessforms, although indirect requestsas prompts do
encorporate
negativeface redress.But politenessis not the issuebetweenspeakers
in interviewssince the interview is by definition an asymettricalexchangewhere
poweris to the interviewer and not the interviewee.The issue of negative face
redress
for the intervieweris encouragmentof the intervieweeto "saymore" and say
more that is salient and interesting.To this end the interviewer momentarily
modifiesthe existinginterpersonalrelationsor meaningpotential in the exchange.
The illusion of equality between speaker and hearer facilitates requests for
informationwhich are highlyface threateningboth in a negativeand positivesense.
Indirectrequestswhich are speaker-oriented,formedby invokingsincerityconditions
or assertions
of A-,B-or D-Events,function, even when positive in denotation, to
threatenthe interviewee'spositiveface and act as provocationsof not simply more
informationbut new information and as such enhancethe quality of the interview
itself.
508
Marcia Macaulav
References
Athanasiadou,
Angeliki (1990)The discourse
functionof questions.
hagmaticsl.I:107-122.
Athanasiadou,Angeliki (1994)The pragmaticsof answers.
hagmatics4.4:56I-574.
Baumert,Michael (1977)Classificationof Englishquestion-answer
structures.
Iournal of hagmatics
1: 85-92.
Bell, Allan (1991) TheLanguageof NewsMedia.Oxford:Blackwell.
Bellinger,David (1979)Changesin the explicitness
of mothers'directivesas children age.Journal
of Child Language6: 443-458.
Bernicot,Josieand Suzannelrgros (1987)[,a comprdhension
desdemandespar les enfantsde 3 d
8 ans:lrs demandesdirecteset les demandesindirectesnon conventionnelles.
EuropeanBulletinof
CognitivePsychologt7.3: 267-293.
Blum-Kulka,Shoshana(1983)The dynamicsof politicalinterviews.
Text3.2: 131-153.
Blum-Kulka, Shoshana(1987)Indirectionand politenessin requests:Sameor different?Journalof
Pragmatics11: 131-146.
Brouwer,Ddd€ (1982)The influenceof the addressee's
sexon politenessin languageuse.Linguistics
20:691-7lL
Brown,Penelopeand StevenC. lrvinson (1987)Politeness.
Cambridge:CambridgeUniversityPress.
Bublitz, Wolfram (1981)Conduciveyes-noquestionsin English.Linguistics19:851-870.
Camras,Linda, Toni Pristo and Mari Brown (1985)Directivechoiceby childrenand adults:Affect,
situation,and linguisticpoliteness.Merrill-PalmerQuarterly3l.l: 19-31.
Cuff, John Haslett (1995)(7 December)Tough interviewingbecominga lost art. Globeand Mail.
Toronto: Globe and Mail Publishing.
Hudson,Richard(1975)The meaningof questions.
Langtage51.1:1-31.
Kegeyama,Taro and Ikuhiro Tamori (1975-6)JapaneseWhimperatives.Papers in Japanese
Linguistics4: 13-53.
Kiefer, Ferenc (1988) On the pragmaticsof answers.ln Questionsand Questioning.Ed. Michel
Meyer.New York: Walter de Gruyter.
King, l.arry (1995) The bestof Larry King Live. Atlanta: Turner Publishing,Inc.
l,abov, William and David Fanshell(1977)Therapeutic
Discourse.
New York: AcademicPress.
Miltwoch, Anita (1979)Final parentheticals
with Englishquestion-their illocutionaryfunctionand
grammar.Journalof Pragmatics3: 401-412.
Parret, Herman (1988)The epistemicsof the question-answer
sequenceand its psycho-pragmatic
limitations.ln Questionsand Questioning.
Ed. Michel Meyer.New York: Walter de Gruyter.
Pl6h, Csabaand Valeria Csato (1985) Indirect directivein Hungarian:An empirical study.Acta
Thestrategicfunction of indirectrequests
for information
509
Linguistic
a AcademiaeScientaium Hungaicae 35.3-4: 299-312.
Rundquist,Suellen(1992) Indirectness:A genderstudy of flouting Grice's maxims.Jountal of
hagmatics18:431-449.
Schaffer,
H.R., Anne Hepburn and G.M. Collis (1983)Verbal and nonverbalaspectsof morhers'
directives.
Journalof Child Language10:337-355.
Schmidt-Radefeldt,
Jiirgen(1977)On so-called'rhetorical'questions.
Joumal of Linguisticsl: 375392.
Searle,
JohnR. (1991)"lndirectspeechacts.'In hagmaticsA Reader.Ed. StevenDavis.New York:
OxfordUniversityPress.
Sperber,
Dan and Deirdre Wilson (1986)Relevance:
Communicationand Cognition. Cambridge,
Mass.:
HarvardUniversityPress.
Stenstrdm,
Anna-Brita(1988)Questioningin conversation.
In Questions
andQuestioning.Ed..
Michel
Meyer.NewYork: Walter de Gruyter.
Tanz,Christine(1981)Asking children to ask;an experimentalinvestigationof the pragmaticsof
relayed
questions.
Joumalof Child Languagel0: 187-194.
Yadugiri,M.A. (1986)Somepragmaticimplicationsof the useof YesandNo in responseto Yes-No
questions.Joumal of hagmatics l0: 199-210.