@cite{francik-clark-1985} — How to Make Requests That Overcome

Obstacles to Compliance @cite{clark-1979} @cite{searle-1969}

Journal of Memory and Language 24 (1985) 560–568.

Overview

Speakers design requests to overcome the greatest potential obstacle to compliance. Obstacle types correspond to @cite{searle-1969}'s preparatory conditions for requests — ability (including knowledge, memory, perception) and willingness — plus speaker memory. Three experiments show:

1. Higher obstacles → fewer direct requests (Exp. 1, Table 1)
2. Form content matches obstacle type: "Do you know?" for knowledge doubt, "Do you remember?" for memory, "Would you mind?" for willingness (Exp. 1 & 2)
3. Can/Could are general-purpose: high appropriateness across all scenario types because they cover both ability and willingness (Exp. 3)
4. Sidestepping: when obstacles are too sensitive, speakers approach obliquely rather than mentioning the obstacle directly (Exp. 1)

Three Strategies for Overcoming Obstacles

1. Conditional request: make the request conditional on the absence of the obstacle. "Did you happen to see what time the concert begins?" means "if you saw it, tell me." More specific obstacles → more specific conditions → less direct forms.
2. General-purpose request: when the obstacle is ill-specified, use a broadly applicable form. "Can you tell me?" and "Could you tell me?" cover both ability and willingness, making them applicable across many situations.
3. Sidestepping: when the obstacle is too sensitive to mention, approach obliquely. Ask for related information the addressee IS willing to give.

Connection to Preparatory Conditions

The obstacle types formalized here derive from PreparatoryCondition in Core.Discourse.SpeechActs. Each obstacle IS a preparatory condition at risk. The specificity gradient (Can you? → Do you know? → Do you remember? → Did you happen to read...?) corresponds to descending the subsumption hierarchy.

inductive Phenomena.Politeness.Studies.FrancikClark1985.ObstacleType : Type

Obstacle types from the paper's experimental design. These correspond to the risk that a specific preparatory condition will not be met.

• ability : ObstacleType
• willingness : ObstacleType
• speakerMemory : ObstacleType

instance Phenomena.Politeness.Studies.FrancikClark1985.instDecidableEqObstacleType : DecidableEq ObstacleType

Equations

• Phenomena.Politeness.Studies.FrancikClark1985.instDecidableEqObstacleType x✝ y✝ = if h : x✝.ctorIdx = y✝.ctorIdx then isTrue ⋯ else isFalse ⋯

def Phenomena.Politeness.Studies.FrancikClark1985.instBEqObstacleType.beq : ObstacleType → ObstacleType → Bool

Equations

• Phenomena.Politeness.Studies.FrancikClark1985.instBEqObstacleType.beq x✝ y✝ = (x✝.ctorIdx == y✝.ctorIdx)

instance Phenomena.Politeness.Studies.FrancikClark1985.instBEqObstacleType : BEq ObstacleType

Equations

• Phenomena.Politeness.Studies.FrancikClark1985.instBEqObstacleType = { beq := Phenomena.Politeness.Studies.FrancikClark1985.instBEqObstacleType.beq }

def Phenomena.Politeness.Studies.FrancikClark1985.instReprObstacleType.repr : ObstacleType → ℕ → Std.Format

Equations

• One or more equations did not get rendered due to their size.

instance Phenomena.Politeness.Studies.FrancikClark1985.instReprObstacleType : Repr ObstacleType

Equations

• Phenomena.Politeness.Studies.FrancikClark1985.instReprObstacleType = { reprPrec := Phenomena.Politeness.Studies.FrancikClark1985.instReprObstacleType.repr }

inductive Phenomena.Politeness.Studies.FrancikClark1985.ObstacleLevel : Type

Obstacle level: high or low risk that the precondition fails.

• high : ObstacleLevel
• low : ObstacleLevel

instance Phenomena.Politeness.Studies.FrancikClark1985.instDecidableEqObstacleLevel : DecidableEq ObstacleLevel

Equations

• Phenomena.Politeness.Studies.FrancikClark1985.instDecidableEqObstacleLevel x✝ y✝ = if h : x✝.ctorIdx = y✝.ctorIdx then isTrue ⋯ else isFalse ⋯

instance Phenomena.Politeness.Studies.FrancikClark1985.instBEqObstacleLevel : BEq ObstacleLevel

Equations

• Phenomena.Politeness.Studies.FrancikClark1985.instBEqObstacleLevel = { beq := Phenomena.Politeness.Studies.FrancikClark1985.instBEqObstacleLevel.beq }

def Phenomena.Politeness.Studies.FrancikClark1985.instBEqObstacleLevel.beq : ObstacleLevel → ObstacleLevel → Bool

Equations

• Phenomena.Politeness.Studies.FrancikClark1985.instBEqObstacleLevel.beq x✝ y✝ = (x✝.ctorIdx == y✝.ctorIdx)

instance Phenomena.Politeness.Studies.FrancikClark1985.instReprObstacleLevel : Repr ObstacleLevel

Equations

• Phenomena.Politeness.Studies.FrancikClark1985.instReprObstacleLevel = { reprPrec := Phenomena.Politeness.Studies.FrancikClark1985.instReprObstacleLevel.repr }

def Phenomena.Politeness.Studies.FrancikClark1985.instReprObstacleLevel.repr : ObstacleLevel → ℕ → Std.Format

Equations

• One or more equations did not get rendered due to their size.

def Phenomena.Politeness.Studies.FrancikClark1985.ObstacleType.toPreparatoryCondition : ObstacleType → Option Core.Discourse.PreparatoryCondition

Map obstacle types to the preparatory condition at risk. Speaker memory is not a preparatory condition on the hearer, so it maps to none — it's a precondition on the speaker.

Equations

• Phenomena.Politeness.Studies.FrancikClark1985.ObstacleType.ability.toPreparatoryCondition = some Core.Discourse.PreparatoryCondition.ability
• Phenomena.Politeness.Studies.FrancikClark1985.ObstacleType.willingness.toPreparatoryCondition = some Core.Discourse.PreparatoryCondition.willingness
• Phenomena.Politeness.Studies.FrancikClark1985.ObstacleType.speakerMemory.toPreparatoryCondition = none

def Phenomena.Politeness.Studies.FrancikClark1985.ObstacleType.modalFlavor : ObstacleType → Option Core.Modality.ModalFlavor

Map obstacle types to their closest modal flavor. Ability obstacles concern the addressee's circumstances (can/could). Willingness maps to deontic as a rough approximation: "Would you?" concerns what the addressee allows themselves to do. Strictly, this is volitional/bouletic modality (the will of the agent), which the current ModalFlavor enum does not distinguish from deontic (external norms). Speaker memory has no corresponding modal flavor.

Equations

• Phenomena.Politeness.Studies.FrancikClark1985.ObstacleType.ability.modalFlavor = some Core.Modality.ModalFlavor.circumstantial
• Phenomena.Politeness.Studies.FrancikClark1985.ObstacleType.willingness.modalFlavor = some Core.Modality.ModalFlavor.deontic
• Phenomena.Politeness.Studies.FrancikClark1985.ObstacleType.speakerMemory.modalFlavor = none

inductive Phenomena.Politeness.Studies.FrancikClark1985.RequestForm : Type

The five request form types tested in Experiment 3. These cover the space from ability-specific to willingness-specific, with Can/Could as general-purpose forms spanning both.

• doYouKnow : RequestForm
• canYouTellMe : RequestForm
• couldYouTellMe : RequestForm
• wouldYouMind : RequestForm
• haveYouToldMe : RequestForm

instance Phenomena.Politeness.Studies.FrancikClark1985.instDecidableEqRequestForm : DecidableEq RequestForm

Equations

• Phenomena.Politeness.Studies.FrancikClark1985.instDecidableEqRequestForm x✝ y✝ = if h : x✝.ctorIdx = y✝.ctorIdx then isTrue ⋯ else isFalse ⋯

instance Phenomena.Politeness.Studies.FrancikClark1985.instBEqRequestForm : BEq RequestForm

Equations

• Phenomena.Politeness.Studies.FrancikClark1985.instBEqRequestForm = { beq := Phenomena.Politeness.Studies.FrancikClark1985.instBEqRequestForm.beq }

def Phenomena.Politeness.Studies.FrancikClark1985.instBEqRequestForm.beq : RequestForm → RequestForm → Bool

Equations

• Phenomena.Politeness.Studies.FrancikClark1985.instBEqRequestForm.beq x✝ y✝ = (x✝.ctorIdx == y✝.ctorIdx)

instance Phenomena.Politeness.Studies.FrancikClark1985.instReprRequestForm : Repr RequestForm

Equations

• Phenomena.Politeness.Studies.FrancikClark1985.instReprRequestForm = { reprPrec := Phenomena.Politeness.Studies.FrancikClark1985.instReprRequestForm.repr }

def Phenomena.Politeness.Studies.FrancikClark1985.instReprRequestForm.repr : RequestForm → ℕ → Std.Format

Equations

• One or more equations did not get rendered due to their size.

def Phenomena.Politeness.Studies.FrancikClark1985.RequestForm.queriedCondition : RequestForm → Option Core.Discourse.PreparatoryCondition

The preparatory condition primarily queried by each request form.

Equations

• Phenomena.Politeness.Studies.FrancikClark1985.RequestForm.doYouKnow.queriedCondition = some Core.Discourse.PreparatoryCondition.knowledge
• Phenomena.Politeness.Studies.FrancikClark1985.RequestForm.canYouTellMe.queriedCondition = some Core.Discourse.PreparatoryCondition.ability
• Phenomena.Politeness.Studies.FrancikClark1985.RequestForm.couldYouTellMe.queriedCondition = some Core.Discourse.PreparatoryCondition.ability
• Phenomena.Politeness.Studies.FrancikClark1985.RequestForm.wouldYouMind.queriedCondition = some Core.Discourse.PreparatoryCondition.willingness
• Phenomena.Politeness.Studies.FrancikClark1985.RequestForm.haveYouToldMe.queriedCondition = none

def Phenomena.Politeness.Studies.FrancikClark1985.RequestForm.isGeneralPurpose : RequestForm → Bool

Whether a form is "general-purpose" — applicable across both ability and willingness scenarios.

Equations

• Phenomena.Politeness.Studies.FrancikClark1985.RequestForm.canYouTellMe.isGeneralPurpose = true
• Phenomena.Politeness.Studies.FrancikClark1985.RequestForm.couldYouTellMe.isGeneralPurpose = true
• x✝.isGeneralPurpose = false

N = 30 (15 per list), 24 scenarios per participant (12 ability + 8 willingness + 4 memory). Each percentage is based on 15 requests per scenario. Responses were pared to requests-proper by omitting prefaces, justifications, and obligations. Key finding: min F'(1,29) = 46.90, p < .001 for the obstacle effect.

structure Phenomena.Politeness.Studies.FrancikClark1985.Exp1Result : Type

• obstacleType : ObstacleType
• level : ObstacleLevel
• nScenarios : ℕ
• directPct : ℕ

instance Phenomena.Politeness.Studies.FrancikClark1985.instReprExp1Result : Repr Exp1Result

Equations

• Phenomena.Politeness.Studies.FrancikClark1985.instReprExp1Result = { reprPrec := Phenomena.Politeness.Studies.FrancikClark1985.instReprExp1Result.repr }

def Phenomena.Politeness.Studies.FrancikClark1985.instReprExp1Result.repr : Exp1Result → ℕ → Std.Format

Equations

• One or more equations did not get rendered due to their size.

def Phenomena.Politeness.Studies.FrancikClark1985.exp1_ability_high : Exp1Result

Equations

• One or more equations did not get rendered due to their size.

def Phenomena.Politeness.Studies.FrancikClark1985.exp1_ability_low : Exp1Result

Equations

• One or more equations did not get rendered due to their size.

def Phenomena.Politeness.Studies.FrancikClark1985.exp1_willingness_high : Exp1Result

Equations

• One or more equations did not get rendered due to their size.

def Phenomena.Politeness.Studies.FrancikClark1985.exp1_willingness_low : Exp1Result

Equations

• One or more equations did not get rendered due to their size.

def Phenomena.Politeness.Studies.FrancikClark1985.exp1_memory_high : Exp1Result

Equations

• One or more equations did not get rendered due to their size.

def Phenomena.Politeness.Studies.FrancikClark1985.exp1_memory_low : Exp1Result

Equations

• One or more equations did not get rendered due to their size.

theorem Phenomena.Politeness.Studies.FrancikClark1985.obstacle_reduces_directness : exp1_ability_high.directPct < exp1_ability_low.directPct ∧ exp1_willingness_high.directPct < exp1_willingness_low.directPct ∧ exp1_memory_high.directPct < exp1_memory_low.directPct

Core finding: for every scenario type, high obstacles produce fewer direct requests than low obstacles.

theorem Phenomena.Politeness.Studies.FrancikClark1985.overall_obstacle_effect : exp1_ability_high.directPct + exp1_willingness_high.directPct + exp1_memory_high.directPct < exp1_ability_low.directPct + exp1_willingness_low.directPct + exp1_memory_low.directPct

Overall: 35% direct in high-obstacle vs 49% in low-obstacle (unweighted mean across the three types).

Experiment 2 (N = 10) collected directness rankings (1 = most direct) for the request forms produced in Experiment 1. High-obstacle mean directness = 4.09, low = 3.64 (min F'(1,48) = 4.59, p < .05).

structure Phenomena.Politeness.Studies.FrancikClark1985.DirectnessEntry : Type

Directness score for a request form. Score × 100 to stay in Nat.

• form : String
• score : ℕ

def Phenomena.Politeness.Studies.FrancikClark1985.instReprDirectnessEntry.repr : DirectnessEntry → ℕ → Std.Format

Equations

• One or more equations did not get rendered due to their size.

instance Phenomena.Politeness.Studies.FrancikClark1985.instReprDirectnessEntry : Repr DirectnessEntry

Equations

• Phenomena.Politeness.Studies.FrancikClark1985.instReprDirectnessEntry = { reprPrec := Phenomena.Politeness.Studies.FrancikClark1985.instReprDirectnessEntry.repr }

def Phenomena.Politeness.Studies.FrancikClark1985.timeScenarioForms : List DirectnessEntry

The nine request forms from the "time" scenario (asking a student the time at Tresidder), ordered from most to least direct. Each successive form describes the obstacle more specifically.

High obstacle: addressee is clearly not wearing a watch. Low obstacle: addressee is wearing a watch.

Equations

• One or more equations did not get rendered due to their size.

theorem Phenomena.Politeness.Studies.FrancikClark1985.directness_monotonic : List.map (fun (x : DirectnessEntry) => x.score) timeScenarioForms = [100, 300, 340, 420, 450, 600, 670, 730, 880]

Scores increase monotonically: more specific obstacle descriptions are judged less direct.

Speakers chose request forms whose content matched the specific obstacle they faced. Percentages from the paper's text.

Six obstacle categories are distinguished, each with characteristic
request forms that appear predominantly or exclusively in the
matching scenario type. 

structure Phenomena.Politeness.Studies.FrancikClark1985.FormUsageRate : Type

• description : String
• scenarioRange : String
• highPct : ℕ
• lowPct : ℕ

instance Phenomena.Politeness.Studies.FrancikClark1985.instReprFormUsageRate : Repr FormUsageRate

Equations

• Phenomena.Politeness.Studies.FrancikClark1985.instReprFormUsageRate = { reprPrec := Phenomena.Politeness.Studies.FrancikClark1985.instReprFormUsageRate.repr }

def Phenomena.Politeness.Studies.FrancikClark1985.instReprFormUsageRate.repr : FormUsageRate → ℕ → Std.Format

Equations

• One or more equations did not get rendered due to their size.

def Phenomena.Politeness.Studies.FrancikClark1985.usage_doYouKnow : FormUsageRate

Equations

• One or more equations did not get rendered due to their size.

def Phenomena.Politeness.Studies.FrancikClark1985.usage_doYouRemember : FormUsageRate

Equations

• Phenomena.Politeness.Studies.FrancikClark1985.usage_doYouRemember = { description := "Do you remember?", scenarioRange := "scenarios 6–7 (memory uncertain)", highPct := 20, lowPct := 13 }

def Phenomena.Politeness.Studies.FrancikClark1985.usage_didYouSee : FormUsageRate

Equations

• One or more equations did not get rendered due to their size.

def Phenomena.Politeness.Studies.FrancikClark1985.usage_doYouRemember_inPerception : FormUsageRate

Equations

• One or more equations did not get rendered due to their size.

def Phenomena.Politeness.Studies.FrancikClark1985.usage_couldIGet : FormUsageRate

Equations

• One or more equations did not get rendered due to their size.

def Phenomena.Politeness.Studies.FrancikClark1985.usage_sidestepping_willingness : FormUsageRate

Equations

• One or more equations did not get rendered due to their size.

def Phenomena.Politeness.Studies.FrancikClark1985.usage_wouldYou_produced : FormUsageRate

Equations

• One or more equations did not get rendered due to their size.

def Phenomena.Politeness.Studies.FrancikClark1985.usage_haveIAsked : FormUsageRate

Equations

• One or more equations did not get rendered due to their size.

theorem Phenomena.Politeness.Studies.FrancikClark1985.obstacle_specific_forms_increase : usage_doYouKnow.highPct > usage_doYouKnow.lowPct ∧ usage_doYouRemember.highPct > usage_doYouRemember.lowPct ∧ usage_didYouSee.highPct > usage_didYouSee.lowPct ∧ usage_couldIGet.highPct > usage_couldIGet.lowPct ∧ usage_haveIAsked.highPct > usage_haveIAsked.lowPct

In every obstacle category, the obstacle-specific form is used more in high-obstacle than low-obstacle conditions.

theorem Phenomena.Politeness.Studies.FrancikClark1985.perception_memory_reversal : usage_didYouSee.highPct > usage_doYouRemember_inPerception.highPct ∧ usage_doYouRemember_inPerception.lowPct > usage_doYouRemember_inPerception.highPct ∧ usage_didYouSee.highPct > usage_didYouSee.lowPct

In scenarios 8–10, the form REVERSES between high and low obstacle: perception forms dominate when perception is the obstacle (high), memory forms dominate when memory is the obstacle (low). This is the strongest per-scenario test of obstacle-specific form selection.

theorem Phenomena.Politeness.Studies.FrancikClark1985.sidestepping_exclusive_to_willingness : usage_sidestepping_willingness.highPct > usage_sidestepping_willingness.lowPct ∧ usage_couldIGet.highPct > usage_couldIGet.lowPct

Sidestepping was exclusive to willingness/permission scenarios: never used in ability scenarios. The rate increased with obstacle level (23% vs 9% for willingness; 37% vs 17% for permission).

N = 18. Five request forms rated for appropriateness (1–7 scale) in each scenario type × obstacle level. Ratings stored as hundredths (5.52 → 552) to stay in Nat.

structure Phenomena.Politeness.Studies.FrancikClark1985.AppropriatenessRating : Type

• form : RequestForm
• obstacleType : ObstacleType
• level : ObstacleLevel
• rating : ℕ

instance Phenomena.Politeness.Studies.FrancikClark1985.instReprAppropriatenessRating : Repr AppropriatenessRating

Equations

• Phenomena.Politeness.Studies.FrancikClark1985.instReprAppropriatenessRating = { reprPrec := Phenomena.Politeness.Studies.FrancikClark1985.instReprAppropriatenessRating.repr }

def Phenomena.Politeness.Studies.FrancikClark1985.instReprAppropriatenessRating.repr : AppropriatenessRating → ℕ → Std.Format

Equations

• One or more equations did not get rendered due to their size.

def Phenomena.Politeness.Studies.FrancikClark1985.app_know_ab_hi : AppropriatenessRating

Equations

• One or more equations did not get rendered due to their size.

def Phenomena.Politeness.Studies.FrancikClark1985.app_know_ab_lo : AppropriatenessRating

Equations

• One or more equations did not get rendered due to their size.

def Phenomena.Politeness.Studies.FrancikClark1985.app_can_ab_hi : AppropriatenessRating

Equations

• One or more equations did not get rendered due to their size.

def Phenomena.Politeness.Studies.FrancikClark1985.app_can_ab_lo : AppropriatenessRating

Equations

• One or more equations did not get rendered due to their size.

def Phenomena.Politeness.Studies.FrancikClark1985.app_could_ab_hi : AppropriatenessRating

Equations

• One or more equations did not get rendered due to their size.

def Phenomena.Politeness.Studies.FrancikClark1985.app_could_ab_lo : AppropriatenessRating

Equations

• One or more equations did not get rendered due to their size.

def Phenomena.Politeness.Studies.FrancikClark1985.app_would_ab_hi : AppropriatenessRating

Equations

• One or more equations did not get rendered due to their size.

def Phenomena.Politeness.Studies.FrancikClark1985.app_would_ab_lo : AppropriatenessRating

Equations

• One or more equations did not get rendered due to their size.

def Phenomena.Politeness.Studies.FrancikClark1985.app_told_ab_hi : AppropriatenessRating

Equations

• One or more equations did not get rendered due to their size.

def Phenomena.Politeness.Studies.FrancikClark1985.app_told_ab_lo : AppropriatenessRating

Equations

• One or more equations did not get rendered due to their size.

def Phenomena.Politeness.Studies.FrancikClark1985.app_know_wi_hi : AppropriatenessRating

Equations

• One or more equations did not get rendered due to their size.

def Phenomena.Politeness.Studies.FrancikClark1985.app_know_wi_lo : AppropriatenessRating

Equations

• One or more equations did not get rendered due to their size.

def Phenomena.Politeness.Studies.FrancikClark1985.app_can_wi_hi : AppropriatenessRating

Equations

• One or more equations did not get rendered due to their size.

def Phenomena.Politeness.Studies.FrancikClark1985.app_can_wi_lo : AppropriatenessRating

Equations

• One or more equations did not get rendered due to their size.

def Phenomena.Politeness.Studies.FrancikClark1985.app_could_wi_hi : AppropriatenessRating

Equations

• One or more equations did not get rendered due to their size.

def Phenomena.Politeness.Studies.FrancikClark1985.app_could_wi_lo : AppropriatenessRating

Equations

• One or more equations did not get rendered due to their size.

def Phenomena.Politeness.Studies.FrancikClark1985.app_would_wi_hi : AppropriatenessRating

Equations

• One or more equations did not get rendered due to their size.

def Phenomena.Politeness.Studies.FrancikClark1985.app_would_wi_lo : AppropriatenessRating

Equations

• One or more equations did not get rendered due to their size.

def Phenomena.Politeness.Studies.FrancikClark1985.app_told_wi_hi : AppropriatenessRating

Equations

• One or more equations did not get rendered due to their size.

def Phenomena.Politeness.Studies.FrancikClark1985.app_told_wi_lo : AppropriatenessRating

Equations

• One or more equations did not get rendered due to their size.

def Phenomena.Politeness.Studies.FrancikClark1985.app_know_me_hi : AppropriatenessRating

Equations

• One or more equations did not get rendered due to their size.

def Phenomena.Politeness.Studies.FrancikClark1985.app_know_me_lo : AppropriatenessRating

Equations

• One or more equations did not get rendered due to their size.

def Phenomena.Politeness.Studies.FrancikClark1985.app_can_me_hi : AppropriatenessRating

Equations

• One or more equations did not get rendered due to their size.

def Phenomena.Politeness.Studies.FrancikClark1985.app_can_me_lo : AppropriatenessRating

Equations

• One or more equations did not get rendered due to their size.

def Phenomena.Politeness.Studies.FrancikClark1985.app_could_me_hi : AppropriatenessRating

Equations

• One or more equations did not get rendered due to their size.

def Phenomena.Politeness.Studies.FrancikClark1985.app_could_me_lo : AppropriatenessRating

Equations

• One or more equations did not get rendered due to their size.

def Phenomena.Politeness.Studies.FrancikClark1985.app_would_me_hi : AppropriatenessRating

Equations

• One or more equations did not get rendered due to their size.

def Phenomena.Politeness.Studies.FrancikClark1985.app_would_me_lo : AppropriatenessRating

Equations

• One or more equations did not get rendered due to their size.

def Phenomena.Politeness.Studies.FrancikClark1985.app_told_me_hi : AppropriatenessRating

Equations

• One or more equations did not get rendered due to their size.

def Phenomena.Politeness.Studies.FrancikClark1985.app_told_me_lo : AppropriatenessRating

Equations

• One or more equations did not get rendered due to their size.

theorem Phenomena.Politeness.Studies.FrancikClark1985.know_best_for_ability : app_know_ab_hi.rating + app_know_ab_lo.rating > app_know_wi_hi.rating + app_know_wi_lo.rating ∧ app_know_ab_hi.rating + app_know_ab_lo.rating > app_know_me_hi.rating + app_know_me_lo.rating

"Do you know?" most appropriate in ability scenarios. Mean across obstacle levels: ability 5.19, willingness 2.63, memory 3.56. min F'(1,27) = 76.96, p < .001.

theorem Phenomena.Politeness.Studies.FrancikClark1985.would_best_for_willingness : app_would_wi_hi.rating + app_would_wi_lo.rating > app_would_ab_hi.rating + app_would_ab_lo.rating ∧ app_would_wi_hi.rating + app_would_wi_lo.rating > app_would_me_hi.rating + app_would_me_lo.rating

"Would you mind?" most appropriate in willingness scenarios. Mean: willingness 5.61, ability 4.68, memory 3.43.

theorem Phenomena.Politeness.Studies.FrancikClark1985.told_best_for_memory : app_told_me_hi.rating + app_told_me_lo.rating > app_told_ab_hi.rating + app_told_ab_lo.rating ∧ app_told_me_hi.rating + app_told_me_lo.rating > app_told_wi_hi.rating + app_told_wi_lo.rating

"Have you told me?" most appropriate in memory scenarios. Mean: memory 4.16, willingness 2.25, ability 1.88.

theorem Phenomena.Politeness.Studies.FrancikClark1985.matching_without_memory : app_know_ab_hi.rating + app_know_ab_lo.rating + app_can_ab_hi.rating + app_can_ab_lo.rating + app_could_ab_hi.rating + app_could_ab_lo.rating > app_know_wi_hi.rating + app_know_wi_lo.rating + app_can_wi_hi.rating + app_can_wi_lo.rating + app_could_wi_hi.rating + app_could_wi_lo.rating ∧ app_would_wi_hi.rating + app_would_wi_lo.rating > app_would_ab_hi.rating + app_would_ab_lo.rating

Even when memory scenarios are omitted, ability forms are most appropriate in ability scenarios and willingness forms in willingness scenarios. min F'(1,23) = 21.82, p < .001.

theorem Phenomena.Politeness.Studies.FrancikClark1985.can_could_general_purpose : have canSum := app_can_ab_hi.rating + app_can_ab_lo.rating + app_can_wi_hi.rating + app_can_wi_lo.rating + app_can_me_hi.rating + app_can_me_lo.rating; have couldSum := app_could_ab_hi.rating + app_could_ab_lo.rating + app_could_wi_hi.rating + app_could_wi_lo.rating + app_could_me_hi.rating + app_could_me_lo.rating; have knowSum := app_know_ab_hi.rating + app_know_ab_lo.rating + app_know_wi_hi.rating + app_know_wi_lo.rating + app_know_me_hi.rating + app_know_me_lo.rating; have wouldSum := app_would_ab_hi.rating + app_would_ab_lo.rating + app_would_wi_hi.rating + app_would_wi_lo.rating + app_would_me_hi.rating + app_would_me_lo.rating; have toldSum := app_told_ab_hi.rating + app_told_ab_lo.rating + app_told_wi_hi.rating + app_told_wi_lo.rating + app_told_me_hi.rating + app_told_me_lo.rating; canSum > knowSum ∧ canSum > wouldSum ∧ canSum > toldSum ∧ couldSum > knowSum ∧ couldSum > wouldSum ∧ couldSum > toldSum

Can/Could are the most appropriate forms overall. Mean: Can 4.96, Could 5.06, Do you know 4.06, Would you mind 4.78, Have you told me 2.38. min F'(1,38) = 139.62, p < .001.

theorem Phenomena.Politeness.Studies.FrancikClark1985.can_could_less_appropriate_with_specific_obstacle : app_can_ab_hi.rating + app_can_wi_hi.rating + app_can_me_hi.rating < app_can_ab_lo.rating + app_can_wi_lo.rating + app_can_me_lo.rating ∧ app_could_ab_hi.rating + app_could_wi_hi.rating + app_could_me_hi.rating < app_could_ab_lo.rating + app_could_wi_lo.rating + app_could_me_lo.rating

Can/Could are less appropriate in high-obstacle than low-obstacle conditions (min F'(1,34) = 12.02, p < .001). General-purpose forms are outperformed by obstacle-specific forms when a specific obstacle can be identified.

theorem Phenomena.Politeness.Studies.FrancikClark1985.wouldYou_production_comprehension_gap : usage_wouldYou_produced.highPct < 10 ∧ usage_wouldYou_produced.lowPct < 5 ∧ app_would_wi_hi.rating + app_would_wi_lo.rating > 1000

Production-comprehension dissociation: "Would you mind?" was rarely PRODUCED in willingness scenarios (only 7% high, 2% low in Exp 1) but was RATED as highly appropriate (5.61 mean in Exp 3). Speakers recognize it as legitimate but prefer Can/Could.

theorem Phenomena.Politeness.Studies.FrancikClark1985.hearer_obstacles_are_preparatory : ObstacleType.ability.toPreparatoryCondition = some Core.Discourse.PreparatoryCondition.ability ∧ ObstacleType.willingness.toPreparatoryCondition = some Core.Discourse.PreparatoryCondition.willingness ∧ ObstacleType.speakerMemory.toPreparatoryCondition = none

Obstacle types that concern the hearer map to preparatory conditions; speaker memory does not.

theorem Phenomena.Politeness.Studies.FrancikClark1985.form_targets_match_obstacle : RequestForm.doYouKnow.queriedCondition = some Core.Discourse.PreparatoryCondition.knowledge ∧ RequestForm.wouldYouMind.queriedCondition = some Core.Discourse.PreparatoryCondition.willingness ∧ RequestForm.haveYouToldMe.queriedCondition = none

Request forms query the condition matching their obstacle target. "Do you know?" queries .knowledge, a subtype of .ability. "Would you mind?" queries .willingness.

theorem Phenomena.Politeness.Studies.FrancikClark1985.knowledge_is_ability_subtype : Core.Discourse.PreparatoryCondition.ability.subsumes Core.Discourse.PreparatoryCondition.knowledge = true

Knowledge (queried by "Do you know?") is subsumed by ability. This is why "Do you know?" is specific to ability scenarios: it queries a SUBTYPE of the ability preparatory condition.

theorem Phenomena.Politeness.Studies.FrancikClark1985.general_forms_query_broad_condition : RequestForm.canYouTellMe.queriedCondition = some Core.Discourse.PreparatoryCondition.ability ∧ RequestForm.couldYouTellMe.queriedCondition = some Core.Discourse.PreparatoryCondition.ability ∧ Core.Discourse.PreparatoryCondition.ability.subsumes Core.Discourse.PreparatoryCondition.knowledge = true ∧ Core.Discourse.PreparatoryCondition.ability.subsumes Core.Discourse.PreparatoryCondition.permission = true

Can/Could query the general .ability condition, which subsumes both .knowledge and .permission. This structural property explains their broad applicability across scenario types (Exp. 3).

theorem Phenomena.Politeness.Studies.FrancikClark1985.obstacle_modal_flavors : ObstacleType.ability.modalFlavor = some Core.Modality.ModalFlavor.circumstantial ∧ ObstacleType.willingness.modalFlavor = some Core.Modality.ModalFlavor.deontic

Ability obstacles map to circumstantial modality: "Can you?" questions the addressee's circumstances. Willingness maps to deontic as the closest available flavor (see § 1 note on the bouletic gap).

theorem Phenomena.Politeness.Studies.FrancikClark1985.specificity_is_subsumption_depth : Core.Discourse.PreparatoryCondition.ability.subsumes Core.Discourse.PreparatoryCondition.knowledge = true ∧ Core.Discourse.PreparatoryCondition.knowledge.subsumes Core.Discourse.PreparatoryCondition.memory = true ∧ Core.Discourse.PreparatoryCondition.knowledge.subsumes Core.Discourse.PreparatoryCondition.perception = true

The specificity gradient in request forms corresponds to depth in the preparatory condition subsumption hierarchy:

Can you? (ability) ⊃ Do you know? (knowledge) ⊃ Do you remember? (memory)

More specific obstacles → deeper in the hierarchy → less direct forms.

The obstacle model predicts: when a form queries a preparatory condition that matches the scenario's obstacle type, it will be rated more appropriate than when it doesn't match. We verify this for each of the three form–obstacle pairings.

theorem Phenomena.Politeness.Studies.FrancikClark1985.endToEnd_know_ability : RequestForm.doYouKnow.queriedCondition = some Core.Discourse.PreparatoryCondition.knowledge ∧ Core.Discourse.PreparatoryCondition.ability.subsumes Core.Discourse.PreparatoryCondition.knowledge = true ∧ app_know_ab_hi.rating + app_know_ab_lo.rating > app_know_wi_hi.rating + app_know_wi_lo.rating ∧ app_know_ab_hi.rating + app_know_ab_lo.rating > app_know_me_hi.rating + app_know_me_lo.rating

End-to-end: "Do you know?" queries .knowledge (⊂ .ability), and the appropriateness data confirms it is rated highest in ability scenarios. The subsumption hierarchy predicts the data.

theorem Phenomena.Politeness.Studies.FrancikClark1985.endToEnd_would_willingness : RequestForm.wouldYouMind.queriedCondition = some Core.Discourse.PreparatoryCondition.willingness ∧ ObstacleType.willingness.toPreparatoryCondition = some Core.Discourse.PreparatoryCondition.willingness ∧ app_would_wi_hi.rating + app_would_wi_lo.rating > app_would_ab_hi.rating + app_would_ab_lo.rating ∧ app_would_wi_hi.rating + app_would_wi_lo.rating > app_would_me_hi.rating + app_would_me_lo.rating

End-to-end: "Would you mind?" queries .willingness, and the data confirms it is rated highest in willingness scenarios.

theorem Phenomena.Politeness.Studies.FrancikClark1985.endToEnd_canCould_general : RequestForm.canYouTellMe.isGeneralPurpose = true ∧ RequestForm.couldYouTellMe.isGeneralPurpose = true ∧ RequestForm.canYouTellMe.queriedCondition = some Core.Discourse.PreparatoryCondition.ability ∧ app_can_ab_hi.rating > 400 ∧ app_can_ab_lo.rating > 400 ∧ app_can_wi_hi.rating > 400 ∧ app_can_wi_lo.rating > 400 ∧ app_can_me_hi.rating > 400 ∧ app_can_me_lo.rating > 400

End-to-end: Can/Could query .ability (general), which subsumes all ability subtypes, and the data confirms they are rated highly across ALL scenario types — the broadest condition yields the broadest applicability.