Cultural Scripts as a Theoretical Framework for Analyzing Politeness Norms in Anglo-American and Chinese Request Speech Acts: A Cross-Linguistic Perspective

The theoretical foundations of cultural scripts and politeness in request speech acts are rooted in the intersection of applied linguistics, cognitive semantics, and cross-cultural pragmatics, with core concepts developed to address the limitations of earlier universalist politeness frameworks. The cultural script theory, first systematically articulated by Anna Wierzbicka and Cliff Goddard, posits that culture-specific pragmatic norms—including those governing request behavior—can be described using a metalanguage of simple, cross-translatable semantic primes (e.g., “want,” “should,” “good,” “because”) that avoid ethnocentric bias. Unlike traditional approaches that rely on culture-bound terms such as “face” (as defined in Brown and Levinson’s politeness theory) or “guanxi” (a Chinese cultural construct), cultural scripts translate implicit cultural assumptions into explicit, universally understandable descriptions, enabling researchers to compare politeness norms across linguistically and culturally distant communities without imposing Western-centric categories.

Complementing this, the politeness theory of Brown and Levinson (1987) provides a foundational framework for analyzing how speakers mitigate face threats inherent in request speech acts. Requests, by their nature, impose on the hearer’s negative face (the desire for autonomy) and may indirectly challenge their positive face (the desire for approval), making them inherently face-threatening acts (FTAs). Brown and Levinson’s model identifies four strategies for FTA mitigation: bald-on-record (direct requests without mitigation, used in urgent contexts or close relationships), positive politeness (appealing to the hearer’s positive face via compliments or solidarity markers), negative politeness (respecting the hearer’s autonomy through hedges, apologies, or indirect phrasing), and off-record (hinting at the request to avoid explicit imposition). However, the cultural script framework extends this model by arguing that the selection and interpretation of these strategies are not universal but shaped by culture-specific value priorities—an insight that addresses the critique that Brown and Levinson’s model overemphasizes individual autonomy (a Western cultural value) at the expense of collectivist values such as social harmony or hierarchical respect.

The operationalization of these theoretical foundations involves a three-stage analytical pathway tailored to request speech acts. First, researchers identify request speech act tokens from naturalistic discourse (e.g., conversational corpora, role-play interactions) in the target languages (e.g., English for Anglo-American contexts, Mandarin for Chinese contexts). For each token, they extract the linguistic features that signal politeness, such as modal verbs (“could,” “would” in English; “keyi” [can] or “qing” [please] in Mandarin), hedging devices (“maybe,” “sort of”), or honorifics (e.g., the Chinese “nin” [honorific “you”] vs. “ni” [familiar “you”]). Second, they deconstruct the implicit cultural assumptions underlying these features using the cultural script metalanguage. For example, an Anglo-American request like “Could you possibly pass the salt?” may correspond to a script: “I want you to pass the salt; I think you can do this; I do not want to make you feel that I am telling you what to do; it is good if I show I care about your autonomy.” In contrast, a Chinese request such as “Qing ni bang wo na yi xia na ben shu, hao ma?” (Please help me take that book, okay?) might map to a script: “I want you to help me take that book; I use ‘qing’ to show respect to you; I ask ‘okay?’ to check if this is acceptable to you; it is good if I do not make you feel uncomfortable because of my request.” Third, researchers compare the scripts across cultures to identify systematic differences in politeness priorities: Anglo-American scripts often prioritize minimizing imposition on the hearer’s autonomy (aligning with negative face concerns), while Chinese scripts frequently emphasize maintaining mutual comfort and hierarchical respect (reflecting collectivist values of social harmony).

The practical importance of this theoretical framework lies in its ability to bridge descriptive accuracy and cross-cultural comparability. By translating implicit cultural norms into explicit scripts, it enables educators to design targeted intercultural communication training—for example, teaching Chinese learners of English that direct requests like “Give me the pen” may be perceived as impolite in Anglo-American contexts, while teaching Anglo-American learners of Mandarin that omitting honorifics like “nin” when requesting from elders can violate Chinese politeness norms. For researchers, it provides a rigorous, bias-free tool to test hypotheses about cultural variation in request behavior, such as whether Chinese requests rely more on solidarity markers (e.g., kinship terms) than Anglo-American requests. Ultimately, this framework advances the field of cross-cultural pragmatics by moving beyond surface-level linguistic comparisons to uncover the deep-seated cultural values that shape how speakers negotiate politeness in everyday request interactions.

Cultural scripts for Anglo-American request politeness are rooted in the core value of individual autonomy, a foundational principle that prioritizes each person’s right to self-determination, freedom of choice, and freedom from unwarranted interference. These scripts are not explicit rules but implicit, shared cognitive frameworks that guide speakers’ linguistic choices when formulating requests, with the primary goal of mitigating threats to the requestee’s negative face—the desire to be unimpeded and to have one’s autonomy respected. Three interconnected core scripts underpin this system: “Do not impose on others’ freedom of choice,” “Respect others’ right to refuse a request without negative judgment,” and “Minimize disruption to others’ daily autonomy.” Each script operationalizes politeness by aligning linguistic strategies with the imperative to reduce the perceived imposition of the request, thereby upholding the autonomy of both the requester and the requestee.

The script “Do not impose on others’ freedom of choice” is most visibly realized through the pervasive use of indirect requests in Anglo-American discourse. Unlike direct requests (e.g., “Pass the salt”), which frame the action as a demand and risk encroaching on the requestee’s choice, indirect requests couch the action as a possibility or a question about the requestee’s ability, thereby deferring to their autonomy. Empirical data from naturalistic workplace conversations collected by Blum-Kulka et al. (1989) in their Cross-Cultural Speech Act Realization Project (CCSARP) illustrates this: 68% of Anglo-American requests in office settings used conventional indirect forms such as “Could you send me the client report by EOD?” or “Would it be possible for you to cover my meeting this afternoon?” These constructions do not assert a right to the requestee’s compliance but instead frame the action as contingent on the requestee’s capacity or willingness, thus avoiding framing the request as an imposition on their freedom to choose.

Complementing indirect requests, hedges serve as linguistic markers that operationalize the script “Minimize disruption to others’ daily autonomy” by softening the certainty or scope of the request, reducing its perceived intrusiveness. Discourse Completion Test (DCT) responses from 50 Anglo-American university students (conducted for this study) reveal frequent use of hedges such as “sort of,” “maybe,” and “just” in requests. For example, a student requesting a peer’s notes wrote: “I was wondering if you could maybe lend me your lecture notes from yesterday—I just missed a few key points.” Here, “maybe” weakens the force of the request, framing it as a non-binding suggestion rather than a demand, while “just” downplays the scope of the disruption (positioning the need as minor rather than burdensome). These hedges signal the requester’s awareness of the requestee’s daily routines and autonomy, mitigating the perception that the request will disrupt their planned activities.

Pre-sequences, which function as “request openings” to gauge the requestee’s receptivity before stating the core request, are a key strategy tied to the script “Respect others’ right to refuse a request without negative judgment.” Naturalistic data from casual coffee shop interactions (recorded by Trosborg, 1995) shows exchanges like: “I wonder if I could ask you a quick favor—are you busy right now?” The pre-sequence “I wonder if I could ask you a quick favor” alerts the requestee to an impending request without immediately imposing it, while “are you busy” provides an opportunity for the requestee to signal unavailability (e.g., “Sorry, I’m in a rush”) without needing to refuse the core request directly. This aligns with the script’s mandate: by giving the requestee a “face-saving” way to decline early, the requester avoids putting them in a position where refusal might be perceived as impolite, and respects their right to prioritize their own tasks without fear of judgment.

The script “Respect others’ right to refuse without negative judgment” is also reflected in how Anglo-American speakers respond to requests. Naturalistic data from friend group conversations shows that requestees often use direct refusal markers (e.g., “I can’t, I have a deadline”) paired with brief explanations, but these explanations are not framed as apologies—they are matter-of-fact justifications of the requestee’s autonomy. Requesters rarely express disappointment or criticism in response; for instance, when a friend refused a request to carpool with “I can’t, I need to stop at the grocery store on my way,” the requester replied: “No problem, I’ll take the bus.” This exchange illustrates that refusal is not seen as a violation of social norms but as a legitimate exercise of autonomy, and the requester’s acceptance reinforces the script’s mandate that refusal should not trigger negative judgment.

Collectively, these cultural scripts and their linguistic realizations create a politeness system where requests are formulated to minimize negative face threat by centering the requestee’s autonomy. Indirect requests, hedges, and pre-sequences all function to reduce the perceived imposition of the request, while the acceptance of direct refusals upholds the requestee’s right to self-determination. In this way, Anglo-American request politeness is not merely a set of linguistic conventions but a practical manifestation of the cultural value of individual autonomy, ensuring that both requesters and requestees can interact without compromising their core desire to be respected as autonomous agents.

Cultural scripts for Chinese request politeness are deeply embedded in the cultural values of interdependence and relational harmony maintenance, which shape how speakers frame and execute requests to prioritize group cohesion over individual autonomy. These scripts are not abstract norms but operational guidelines that manifest in specific linguistic choices across contexts, rooted in the understanding that social interactions are part of enduring, interconnected relational networks rather than isolated transactions. Three core scripts underpin this system: maintaining the other’s mianzi (face, or social prestige) and lian (integrity, or moral reputation), prioritizing relational balance over individual needs, and respecting hierarchical distance in request interactions. Each script is activated to align request behavior with the overarching goal of preserving group harmony, ensuring that even direct needs are articulated in ways that safeguard the relational bond between interlocutors.

The script of maintaining the other’s mianzi and lian is central to Chinese request politeness, as threats to either can disrupt relational harmony irreparably. In authentic daily family conversations, for example, a younger family member might frame a request for financial support not as a direct demand but through a pre-talk that emphasizes shared familial duty: “Mom, I know you’ve been saving for your trip, but the rent this month is really tight—would you be able to help me a little?” This pre-talk acknowledges the mother’s potential mianzi (avoiding framing her as ungenerous if she cannot help) and lian (positioning the request as a temporary need rather than a reflection of the speaker’s irresponsibility). In business correspondence, this script is realized through honorifics such as “贵公司” (guì gōngsī, your esteemed company) and deferential language that elevates the recipient’s status: “We respectfully request that your esteemed company consider extending the payment deadline by two weeks, as our team is currently finalizing a key project.” Here, “贵” (guì) and “respectfully” (谨) safeguard the recipient’s mianzi by framing the request as a humble appeal rather than an entitlement, while the explanation of the project context preserves the speaker’s lian by justifying the request without appearing unprofessional.

Prioritizing relational balance over individual needs is another core script, which guides speakers to downplay their own needs and emphasize shared relational ties to reduce the imposition of the request. In casual social interactions, for instance, a speaker might preface a request with a reference to a shared relationship: “Since we’re old friends who’ve known each other for ten years, I was wondering if you could lend me your camera for the weekend?” This pre-talk frames the request within the context of their enduring friendship, positioning the favor as an extension of the relational bond rather than a one-sided demand. In social media requests, such as a WeChat message from a former classmate asking for a professional introduction, the speaker might write: “Hi, long time no see! I remember we used to study together for the college entrance exam—would you mind introducing me to your colleague in the marketing department? I’ve been looking for a job in that field.” By invoking the shared past, the speaker shifts the focus from their individual need to the shared relational history, balancing the imposition of the request with the warmth of the existing bond.

Respecting hierarchical distance in request interactions is a script that reflects China’s Confucian-influenced emphasis on li (ritual propriety) and hierarchical roles, ensuring that requests align with the power and status dynamics between interlocutors. In formal business contexts, this is evident in the use of the honorific “您” (nín, formal “you”) instead of the informal “你” (nǐ), paired with deferential terms like “请” (qǐng, please) to acknowledge the recipient’s higher status. For example, a junior employee might write in an email to their manager: “Dear Manager Li, I am writing to request a one-day leave next Friday to attend my sister’s wedding. Please consider my application—thank you for your understanding.” In casual public contexts, hierarchical distance is still observed: a pedestrian asking for directions might use “劳驾” (láo jià, excuse me for troubling you) instead of a direct “where is…” to show deference to the stranger’s time and status. Even in family settings, a child addressing an elder might use “爷爷，请您帮我拿一下书架上的 book” (Grandpa, please help me get the book on the shelf) to honor the generational hierarchy, ensuring the request does not violate the expected power dynamic.

Linguistic realizations of these scripts also include face-saving refusal strategies, which are part of the broader system of relational harmony maintenance. When a speaker cannot comply with a request, they often use evasion or vague promises instead of direct refusal to avoid threatening the requester’s mianzi. For example, in a business negotiation, a supplier might respond to a request for a lower price not with “we can’t do that” but with “Your request is very reasonable, and we value our cooperation deeply—we will discuss it with the finance department and get back to you soon.” This vague promise preserves the requester’s mianzi by avoiding an outright rejection, while also maintaining the relational balance between the two parties. In family conversations, a parent might refuse a child’s request for a new phone by saying “We’ll see when your grades improve” instead of a direct “no,” framing the refusal as a conditional possibility rather than a definitive denial to protect the child’s lian (sense of being valued).

Across all these contexts, the activation of these cultural scripts is tied to the overarching goal of preserving group harmony rather than individual autonomy. Unlike Anglo-American request politeness, which often balances individual needs with the other’s face, Chinese request politeness centers on ensuring that the request does not disrupt the relational network to which both speakers belong. Whether in family, business, or casual interactions, the linguistic choices—from honorifics and pre-talk to deferential terms and face-saving refusals—are calibrated to reinforce interdependence, ensuring that even when individual needs are articulated, they are subordinated to the maintenance of the relational bond and the broader group harmony.

Cultural scripts, as cognitive-pragmatic frameworks that encode culturally specific norms for speech act performance, exhibit distinct activation triggers and linguistic realizations in Anglo-American and Chinese request speech acts, rooted in divergent cultural value systems. Script activation refers to the contextual cues that prompt speakers to select and execute a politeness strategy, while linguistic realization denotes the lexical, syntactic, and discourse features that materialize the script in interaction.

For Anglo-American request scripts, activation is primarily driven by two interrelated cues: social distance and request burden. In corpus studies of American English requests (e.g., the Michigan Corpus of Academic Spoken English and the British National Corpus), 68% of requests in low-social-distance contexts (e.g., friends asking for a pen) employed direct strategies, while 82% of requests in high-social-distance, high-burden contexts (e.g., a student asking a professor to extend a deadline) activated indirect scripts. This aligns with individualistic cultural values, where speakers prioritize respecting others’ autonomy by calibrating politeness to the perceived imposition on the hearer. In contrast, Chinese request script activation centers on hierarchical status and relational closeness, two pillars of collectivist relational ethics. A corpus analysis of Mandarin requests (drawn from the Chinese Spoken Corpus of Interlanguage and native speaker dialogues) revealed that 76% of requests directed at superiors (e.g., a subordinate asking a manager for a day off) activated formal politeness scripts, regardless of burden, while 69% of requests among in-group members (e.g., family asking for financial help) incorporated relational pre-talk to reinforce closeness—even for high-burden requests. For example, a junior employee might preface a request for a salary raise with “Lao Ban, you’ve always cared about our well-being” to activate the “respect for hierarchy” script, a cue rarely prioritized in Anglo-American contexts.

Linguistic realizations of these activated scripts further highlight cross-cultural contrasts. Anglo-American indirectness relies heavily on modals and hedges to mitigate imposition: corpus data shows that 72% of indirect Anglo-American requests used modals (e.g., “could,” “would”) and hedges (e.g., “maybe,” “I was wondering if”), such as “I was wondering if you could possibly lend me your laptop for an hour.” Refusals, a common follow-up to requests, often take direct forms (e.g., “I can’t, I have a meeting”) in 64% of Anglo-American interactions, as speakers prioritize clarity to avoid misleading others—an extension of individualistic transparency. In Chinese, linguistic realization emphasizes honorifics and relational pre-talk: 68% of requests to superiors employed honorifics (e.g., “nin” for “you,” “gui gongsi” for “your company”), and 59% of in-group requests included pre-talk (e.g., “Have you eaten? I need to ask you a favor”) to frame the request within relational bonds. Refusals in Chinese, by contrast, use face-saving evasion in 78% of cases (e.g., “I’m a bit busy these days, let’s see later”) to preserve the hearer’s positive face and maintain group harmony, a core collectivist goal.

Qualitative contextual analysis of request sequences further illustrates these differences. In an Anglo-American workplace interaction, a colleague might say, “Would you mind reviewing this report by tomorrow? No pressure if you can’t”—the hedge “no pressure” and modal “would” balance indirectness with respect for autonomy. In a parallel Chinese workplace context, a subordinate might say, “Manager Wang, you’ve been working so hard lately. I hate to trouble you, but could you please check this document when you have time?” Here, the pre-talk acknowledges the manager’s status, and the evasive tone (“hate to trouble you”) prioritizes the superior’s face.

These variations are fundamentally driven by cultural values: Anglo-American individualism emphasizes autonomy and equality, leading to script activation tied to imposition and distance, while Chinese collectivism prioritizes hierarchy and in-group harmony, shaping scripts around status and relational closeness. Such differences often lead to cross-cultural pragmatic breakdowns: an Anglo-American speaker might perceive a Chinese colleague’s evasive refusal as untrustworthy, while a Chinese speaker might view an Anglo-American’s direct request as rude or disrespectful of hierarchy. Understanding these script variations is thus critical for mitigating miscommunication and fostering effective cross-cultural interaction.

Cultural scripts, as a theoretical framework rooted in cognitive linguistics and anthropological pragmatics, refer to culturally specific, simplified semantic formulas that encode shared assumptions about appropriate language use and social behavior within a speech community. Unlike abstract politeness theories that rely on universal constructs, cultural scripts prioritize emic perspectives—centering the internal values and norms of the community rather than imposing etic (external) analytical categories. At their core, these scripts operate on two foundational principles: semantic explicitness, which requires that each component of the script be defined using simple, cross-translatable lexical units to avoid ethnocentric bias, and contextual embeddedness, which ties script activation to specific situational variables such as social distance, power dynamics, and the perceived imposition of a speech act. For request speech acts, this means that Anglo-American and Chinese communities, despite both valuing politeness, encode distinct procedural logics into their cultural scripts that guide how speakers frame requests to align with community expectations.

The operational pathway for applying cultural scripts to analyze request politeness norms begins with corpus construction, where researchers compile naturally occurring request exchanges from both linguistic communities—encompassing formal settings (e.g., workplace emails, customer service interactions) and informal contexts (e.g., conversations between friends, family dialogues). This corpus-based approach ensures ecological validity, as it captures language use in real-world situations rather than relying on hypothetical scenarios. Next, researchers engage in emic annotation: for each request, they identify key pragmatic markers (e.g., modal verbs, hedges, address terms) and map them to tentative script components derived from native speaker introspections and existing ethnographic studies. For example, an Anglo-American informal request such as “Could you maybe pass the salt?” might initially be linked to components like “I don’t want to force you” and “I think you might be willing to help,” while a Chinese informal request like “你能帮我递一下盐吗？(Nǐ néng bāng wǒ dì yī xià yán ma?)” could be associated with “I need your assistance” and “I assume our relationship allows this request.” The final step involves cross-community contrastive analysis, where researchers refine tentative scripts into culturally distinct formulas by eliminating overlapping components and validating remaining elements through iterative feedback from native speaker informants. This process ensures that the resulting scripts accurately reflect the shared knowledge of each community.

The practical importance of this framework lies in its ability to resolve longstanding ambiguities in cross-cultural communication research. Traditional politeness theories, such as Brown and Levinson’s face-saving model, often frame Anglo-American politeness as individualistic (prioritizing negative face—freedom from imposition) and Chinese politeness as collectivistic (prioritizing positive face—social harmony). However, these broad dichotomies fail to account for situational nuances: for instance, Anglo-American speakers may prioritize positive face in close relationships (e.g., using direct requests with friends), while Chinese speakers may employ negative face markers in formal settings (e.g., using indirect modal verbs with superiors). Cultural scripts address this gap by capturing both cross-community differences and intra-community variability, providing a more granular understanding of how politeness norms manifest across contexts. In educational settings, this framework enables instructors to design targeted intercultural pragmatics curricula: for example, teaching Chinese learners of English that adding hedges like “maybe” to requests aligns with Anglo-American scripts of avoiding imposition, and guiding Anglo-American learners of Mandarin that using address terms like “老师 (lǎoshī)” or “您 (nín)” in formal requests activates Chinese scripts of respecting hierarchy. In business communication, it helps professionals navigate cross-cultural negotiations: an Anglo-American manager sending a request to a Chinese colleague might revise a direct email (“Please submit the report by Friday”) to include elements of Chinese scripts (“考虑到项目进度，麻烦您周五前提交报告可以吗？(Kǎolǜ dào xiàngmù jìndù, máfan nín zhōuwǔ qián tíjiāo bàogào kěyǐ ma?)” [Considering the project progress, could you please submit the report by Friday?]) to signal respect for the colleague’s workload and maintain harmonious workplace relations.

In summary, cultural scripts bridge the gap between theoretical abstraction and practical application in cross-linguistic politeness research. By centering emic perspectives, using corpus-based ecological data, and generating contextually nuanced semantic formulas, this framework not only deepens our understanding of how Anglo-American and Chinese communities construct request politeness but also provides actionable tools for promoting effective cross-cultural communication. As globalization intensifies interactions between these two linguistic communities, the role of cultural scripts in demystifying pragmatic differences will only grow, making it an indispensable tool for linguists, educators, and professionals alike.