face - saving strategies in teachers' oral feedback in english classrooms - a vietnamese - american cross-cultural study

POST GRADUATE STUDIES *** NGÔ THỊ PHƯƠNG LÊ Face-Saving Strategies in Teachers’ Oral Feedback in the English Classrooms: A Vietnamese- American cross-cultural study Field: English Lin

POST GRADUATE STUDIES

***

NGÔ THỊ PHƯƠNG LÊ

Face-Saving Strategies in Teachers’ Oral Feedback in the English Classrooms: A Vietnamese- American cross-cultural study

Field: English Linguistics Code: 60.22.15

Combined Program

Supervisor: Prof Nguyen Quang, Ph.D

HANOI, 2010

Table of Contents

Acknowledgement ……… ………… ……… i

Declaration ……… … ii

Table of Contents ……….……… iii

List of Abbreviations ……… ……… v

List of Tables ……… vii

List of Figures and Charts ……… ………viii

Abstract ……….ix

CHAPTER I INTRODUCTION 1

I Rationale 1

II Aims of the study .2

III Scope of the study 2

IV Method of the study .2

V Organization of the study .3

CHAPTER II LITERATURE REVIEW .4

VI Speech Acts .4

VII Politeness Theory .6

II.1 The Notion of Politeness .6

II.2 The Notion of Face 7

II.3 Politeness Principles 8

II.3 Face-saving Strategies 12

II.3.1 Positive Politeness Strategies 12

II.3.1 Negative Politeness Strategies 22

VIII.Oral Feedback 29

CHAPTER III METHODOLOGY .31

I Aims of the study .31

II Research questions .31

III Populations and Sampling: Participants 31

IV Data Collection .32

IV.1 The Discourse Completion Tasks .32

IV.2 Data Collection Instruments .33

IV.3 The Administration of the Questionnaires .35

IV.4 Participants .35

IV.5 Data Analysis .36

CHAPTER IV DATA ANALYSIS AND DISCUSSIONS .39

I Results and Discussions of the MPQ .39

I.1 Result of HaF .39

I.2 Result of HoF 43

I.3 Remarks .46

I.3.1 HaF 48

I.3.2 HoF 47

I.3.3 HaF vs HoF 48

II Results and Discussions of the DCT .51

II.1 FSSs Used in Teachers’ Oral Feedback to Students 51

II.2 Realization of FSSs in Teachers’ Oral Feedback 52

II.2.1 On- record 52

II.2.2 Give advice, suggestions 53

II.2.3 Make joke 53

II.2.4 Include both S and H in the activity 54

II.2.5 Encourage 54

II.2.6 Be conventionally indirect 55

II.2.7 Apologize 55

II.2.8 Impersonalize the S and the H 55

II.2.9 State the FTA as a general rule 56

II.2.10 Go on record as incurring a debt, or as not indebting 56

II.2.11 Off - record 56

II.3 Use of Strategies as Seen from Types of Feedback 57

II.3.1 Corrective Feedback 58

II.3.2 Evaluative Feedback 63

II.3.3 Strategic Feedback 68

CHAPTER V CONCLUSION .74

I Major findings 74

II Choice of face saving strategy for types of feedback 74

III Choice of FSSs in terms of feedback receiver 74

IV Implications for English language teachers 75

V Suggestions for further study 76

REFERENCES

APPENDICES

R Relation

SPSS Statistical Package for Social Sciences

Str9 State the FTA as a general rule

Str10 Go on record as incurring a debt, or as not indebting

LIST OF TABLES

Table 5 Assessment on Advisability of Situations for HaF by Vietnamese and American 41

Teachers

Table 6 Assessment on Advisability of Situations for HoF by Vietnamese and 44

American Teachers

Table 8 Summary of strategies used by VTs and ATs when giving oral feedbacks 52 Table 9 VT group Statistic for Strategies Used in CF Category 58 Table 10 AT group statistics for strategies used in CF Category 59 Table 11 AT & VT group statistics for strategies used for HaF in CF Category 61 Table 12 VT and AT group statistics for strategies used for HoF in CF 62 Table 13 Group statistics for Strategies used by VTs for EF 63 Table 14 Group statistics for Strategies used by ATs for EF 65 Table 15 Group statistics for Strategies used by VTs and ATs for HaF in EF Category 66 Table 16 Group statistics for strategies used by VTs and ATs for HoF in EF Category 68 Table 17 Group statistics for strategies used by VTs for HaF in SF Category 69 Table 18 Group statistics for strategies used by ATs for HaF in SF Category 70 Table 19 Group statistics for strategies used by VTs & ATs for HaF in SF Category 70 Table 20 Group statistics for strategies used by VTs & ATs for HoF in SF Category 72

LIST OF FIGURES AND CHARTS

Figure 1 Selection of a strategy following an FTA, (Brown and Levinson, 1987) 10Figure 2 Strategies to minimize risk of losing face (Nguyen Quang, 1999:30) 10Figure 3 Brown and Levinson’s (1987) mechanisms for the realization of PPSs 21 Figure 4 Brown and Levinson’s (1987) mechanisms for the realization of NPSs 29Chart 1 Choice of FSSs for HaF in CF Category by VTs and ATs 61Chart 2 Choice of FSSs for HoF in CF Category by VTs and ATs 63

Chart 3 Choice of FSSs by VTs and ATs for HaF in EF Category 67Chart 4 Choice of FSSs by VTs and ATs for HoF in EF Category 68 Chart 5 Choice of FSSs by VTs and ATs for HaF in SF Category 71 Chart 6 Choice of FSSs by VTs and ATs for HoF in SF Category 72

CHAPTER I INTRODUCTION

I Rationale

It has long been realized that the forms and uses of a given language reflect the cultural values of the society in which the language is spoken Linguistic competence alone is not enough for learners of a language to be competent in that language (Krasner, 1999) Therefore, together with learning and using a foreign language, language users should deepen their understanding of its culture in order to communicate successfully and appropriately

It can be said that “politeness” is one of the most important categories in communication and pragmatics study, especially in cross-cultural communication/pragmatics Politeness strategies are applied consciously and unconsciously in communication in everyday social interaction These strategies help

to make participants feel satisfied because their “face” is respected This fact is much truer in such high context culture as Vietnam

Towards successful communication in the real world, some cross-cultural studies such as requesting, refusing, thanking, apologizing have been conducted so far

to help Vietnamese students of English avoid confusion when expressing themselves

As a teacher of English, the author has to do a lot of interactions with her students in the class setting and thus, realizes some of the problems in communication between teachers and students, among which is the uncomfortable and stressful feeling of students when interacting When the author attended some classes of American teachers, she found it interesting when she realized that there are many differences between the feedback that American and Vietnamese teachers give to their students

For the above-mentioned reasons, the author conducts the study entitled

“Face-saving Strategies in Teachers’ Oral Feedback in English classrooms: A

Vietnamese – American cross-cultural study” Such is her hope that her study will be

a contribution to the understanding of the nature of this activity across cultures

II Aims of the study

The aims of the study are:

 To investigate the face-saving strategies used by American and Vietnamese teachers when giving oral feedback to students in English classrooms

 To clarify major similarities and differences between American and Vietnamese teachers when giving different types of feedback

 To provide implications in English Language Teaching and contribute to increasing cross-cultural awareness among English language teachers and learners

III Scope of the study

The study deals with verbal aspects of the act of giving feedback The Paralinguistic and non-verbal factors in communication are beyond the scope of this study Feedback itself can be given in the oral or written form As it is a study on face-to-face communication, the study focuses on oral form only Besides, feedback can be seen in the light of linguistics or teaching methodology; however, in this study, only linguistics aspects are taken into account Another point to be noticed is that a feedback can be a positive or a negative evaluation on students‟ performance Yet, in this study, only feedbacks for negative performance, seen as obvious FTA, are targeted Last but not the least, only oral feedbacks produced by teachers in speaking and writing sessions are examined in this study as they are considered as productive skills while reading and listening are perceptive, thus, there are not many chances for the diversification of feedback

In short, the study especially focuses on face-saving strategies used by teachers in giving oral feedback across Vietnamese and American languages and cultures

IV Methodology

The research is conducted via quantitative and qualitative, descriptive and comparative methods The data was collected via questionnaires termed Discourse Completion Tasks (DCT), which was logically and empirically validated before it is used as a data collection instrument The instrument used to construct validation of the situations designed for the DCT is Metapragmatic Questionnaire (MPQ) Then data will be analyzed using Independent Samples t-test and other functions of SPSS 15.0 (Methodology will be further detailed in Chapter III)

V Organization of the study

The study will consist of the following parts:

Chapter I Introduction

This chapter will introduce the rationale, aims, scope, and organization of the study

Chapter II: Literature Review

Theoretical background relevant to the topic and critical survey of related articles, books and other resources will be presented

Chapter II: Methodology

This chapter presents the detailed procedure of the study: the methodology, population selection, data collection and analysis

Chapter III: Findings and Discussion

This chapter deals with the findings drawn out from the analysis of data The findings and discussion are based on describing and contrasting face-saving strategies used by American and Vietnamese teachers

Chapter IV Conclusion

Main points and contents of the study are summarized based on the results of the study Implications of the study and recommendations for further research are presented

CHAPTER II LITERATURE REVIEW

I Speech Acts

We perform speech acts when we offer an apology, greeting, request, complaint, invitation, compliment, or refusal A speech act is an utterance that serves

a function in communication A speech act might contain just one word, as in "Sorry!"

to perform an apology, or several words or sentences: "I‟m sorry I forgot your

birthday I just let it slip my mind." Speech acts include real-life interactions and

require not only knowledge of the language but also appropriate use of that language within a given culture

After Austin‟s initiation of speech acts theory in “How to do things with words” (1962), it has attracted the interest of so many linguists such as Hymes

(1964), Searle (1969), Leech (1983), Schmidt and Richards (1983), Yule (1996) Austin‟s main contribution to speech acts theory is the axiom that by saying something, we often perform an act or do something Thus, a speech act is a unit of speaking and performs different functions in communication Austin (1962) believes that a speech act involves three kinds of separate but related act, which are locutionary, illocutionary and perlocutionary

When a person produces an utterance with a particular form and a more or less

determinate meaning, he performs a locutionary act It is considered as “the basic act

of utterance” or simply the act of “producing a meaningful linguistic expression”,

(Yule, 1996:48) However, we hardly produce any utterances with no purpose Suppose, for example, that a bartender utters the words, 'The bar will be closed in five minutes.‟ In saying this, the bartender is performing an act of informing the patrons of the bar's imminent closing and perhaps also the act of urging them to finish their drink This kind of act via utterances we produce with communicative purposes is known as illocutionary act The illocutionary act is the function of the utterance that the speaker has in mind, the communicative purpose that is intended or achieved by the utterance

Besides, in general, an utterance is not produced with just a function but

without an intention for a further effect When saying „The bar will be closed in five minutes‟, the bartender intends to cause the patrons to believe that the bar is about to

close and of getting them to finish their drink This is generally known as perlocutionary act which refers to hearer‟s recognition to speaker‟s illocutionary act

Of all these acts, illocutionary act is regarded as the most important one and the most discussed as it is what the speaker actually wants to achieve through the performance

of utterances Yule (1996:49) claims that “the term speech act is generally interpreted quite narrowly to mean only the illocutionary force of an utterance.”

Austin (1962) groups illocutionary acts into give classes:

and consistent principles of each category “a great deal of overlap from one category

to another and a great deal of heterogeneity within some of the categories”, (Searle,

1979:10) Searle proposes a five-way classification of illucotionary act, which includes:

 Declarations: statements that attempt to change the world by

“representing it as having been changed”

 Representatives: statements that may be judged true or false because they aim to describe a state of affairs in the world

 Expressives: statements that express the “sincerity condition of the speech act”

 Directives: statements that attempt to make the other person's actions fit the propositional content

 Commisives: statements that commit the speaker to a course of action as described by the propositional content

These notions obviously contribute to the understanding of feedback They play prominent roles in shaping the central and focal thoughts for the analysis of feedback in the later parts of the study

II Politeness Theory

II.1 The notion of politeness

Politeness holds a significant status in human interaction and it is an interesting issue in both inter-cultural and cross-cultural study Many linguists have developed different views on politeness

According to Lakoff (1975:64), politeness is developed by “societies in order

to reduce friction in personal interaction” The assumption here is that friction in

personal interaction is undesirable and thus, societies developed strategies to reduce that friction In her rules of pragmatic competence, Lakoff proposes three rules of politeness: 1 Don‟t impose, 2 Give options, 3 Make A feel good – be friendly

Leech (1980:19) defines politeness as “strategic conflict avoidance”, which

“can be measured in terms of degree of effort put into the avoidance of a conflict situation”, and the establishment and maintenance of comity However, in Leech‟s

definition, the avoidance of conflict is seen as a conscious effort on the part of the person being polite because it is „strategic‟

Yule (1996) is much conscious of the difficulty in proposing an umbrella definition for the notion „polite‟ Therefore, he sticks the notion „polite‟ with the

notion „face‟ According to Yule, politeness, in an interaction, can be defined as “the means employed to show awareness of another person‟s face.”, (1996:60) In this

sense, politeness can be accomplished in situations of social distance or closeness Brown and Levinson (1987:55) seem to share this view with Yule They view

politeness as “a complex system for softening face-threatening acts”, and politeness theory offers “a tool for describing the quality of social relationships”

The common factor in Lakoff‟s (1975), Leech‟s (1980), Yule‟s (1996) and Brown and Levinson‟s (1987) approach is that they all claim, explicitly or implicitly, the universality of their principles for their linguistic politeness The general idea is to

understand various strategies for interactive behaviors based on the fact that people engage in rational behaviors to achieve the satisfaction of certain wants

II.2.The notion of face

Face is a crucially important consideration in human interaction of all kinds

“Face” is “something that is emotionally invested, and that can be lost, maintained, or enhanced and must be constantly attended to in interaction”, (Brown and Levinson, 1987:66) Thus, Brown and Levinson (1987) take “face” as “the public self-image that every member wants to claim for himself”, (1987:66), that is, emotional and social

sense of self that everyone has and expects everyone else to recognize Brown and Levinson (1987) categorize the concept of “face” into “positive face” and “negative

face” Positive face is defined as “the want of every member that his wants be desirable to at least some others", or alternately, "the positive consistent self-image or 'personality'”(crucially including the desire that this self-image be appreciated and approved of) claimed by interactants Negative face is defined as "the want of every 'competent adult member' that his actions be unimpeded by others", or "the basic claim to territories, personal preserves, rights to non-distraction i.e the freedom of action and freedom from imposition" In short, positive face refers to one's self-

esteem, while negative face refers to one's freedom to act

According to Goffman (1967), there may be several reasons why people want

to save their face They may have become attached to the value on which this face has been built, they may be enjoying the results or the power their face has created, or they may be nursing higher social aspirations for which they will need this face

Goffman also proposes “face work”: “the actions taken by a person to make whatever

he is doing consistent with face” People maintain their face by presenting a consistent

image to other people And they have to make sure that in the effort to keep their own face, they do not damage the others‟ face

II.3 Politeness Principles

It is widely accepted that the principles of politeness govern all the communicative behavior Lakoff (1977), Leech (1983) and Brown and Levinson (1987) propose different sets of politeness of principles that speakers resort to when saying something

Lakoff connects politeness with Grice‟s Cooperative Principle (1975) in which

she adds a set of “rules of politeness” Grice‟s theory rests on the assumption that

“interactants aim at establishing communicative behavior”, (Watts, 2003:203), and

that people are intrinsically cooperative and aim to be as informative as possible in communication, (Eelen, 2001:2) Grice (1975) proposes a set of four maxims which characteries the Cooperative Principle:

 The maxim of Quantity: be appropriately informative

 The maxim of Quality: be truthful

 The maxim of Relation: be relevant

 The maxim of Manner: be orderly and clear

In normal communication, it is difficult to strictly follow these above maxims, or

in other words, Grice‟s maxims are potentially violated Therefore, Lakoff (1973) proposes a set of rules of politeness:

1 Don‟t impose

2 Give options

3 Make A feel good, be friendly

These rules manifests Lakoff‟s suggestions on types of politeness, ranging from formal politeness (don‟t impose), through informal politeness (give options) to intimate politeness (Make A feel good, be friendly) When these rules are followed, the effects of impolite utterances are minimized while the effects of polite illocutions are maximized

Leech (1983), through his Politeness Principle, proposes a way of explaining how politeness operates in conversational exchanges The central concept in Leech‟s

model is that of “a cost-benefit scale of politeness” (as cited in Watts, 2003:66)

related to both speaker and hearer The Politeness Principle therefore consists of six maxims relating to the notion of cost and benefit:

 The Tact maxim: minimize cost to other; maximize benefit to other

 The Generosity maxim: Minimize the expression of benefit to self; maximize

the expression of cost to self

 The Approbation maxim: minimize dispraise of other; maximize praise of

other

 The Modesty maxim: minimize praise of self; maximize dispraise of self

 The Agreement maxim: minimize disagreement between self and other;

maximize agreement between self and other

 The Sympathy maxim: minimize antipathy between self and other; maximize

sympathy between self and other

Of all the six maxims, Leech considers the Tact and the Approbation maxim more important than Generosity and Modesty maxim as he believes that politeness is more oriented to the other than the self (Locher, 2004:64) Leech (1983) claims that

Politeness Principle is necessary to “rescue the cooperative principle”(Mey, 1993:81)

of Grice and that Politeness Principle is intended to operate alongside the Cooperative Principle

The theory of politeness by Brown and Levinson first appeared in 1987, which

is then often referred to as “face-saving” theory of politeness, as it builds on Goffman‟s notion of „face‟ (as discussed in II.2) When communicating, people may

give a threat to another individual‟s self image, or create a “face-threatening act”

(FTA), (Brown and Levinson, 1987) This act impedes the freedom of actions (negative face), or the desire to be praised or approved of (positive face) The following figure shows macro-strategies that are chosen when a speaker does an FTA

to a listener According to Brown and Levinson (1987), the lower the number preceding the strategies, the higher chance of face threat

Figure 1 Selection of a strategy following an FTA, (Brown and Levinson, 1987)

For universal validity, Nguyen Quang (1999: 129) proposes another one:

Figure 2 Strategies to minimize risk of losing face (Nguyen Quang, 1999:30)

For the purpose to deal with FTAs, speakers have to resort to FSSs when they are performing FSAs In the above figure, Brown and Levinson (1987) and Nguyen

(1999) introduce a set of possible macro-strategies for avoiding the FTAs or minimizing the face –threat of the FTAs

Macro-strategy 1: On- record

When the speaker goes on record, he can choose to do it with or without

redressive action; and there is a direct possibility that the audience will be shocked or embarrassed by the strategy When S does it without any consideration to H‟s face, he

does it baldly Imperative forms are known as Bald on record strategy For example:

“Give me a pen”

Macro-strategy 2: Positive politeness

This strategy attempts to minimize the threat to the hearer‟s face For example:

“I know that you‟ve been really busy lately, but could you do the dishes?”

Macro-strategy 3: Negative politeness

This strategy presumes that the speaker will be imposing on the hearer though the speaker recognizes that the hearer wants to be respected For example: “I don‟t want to bother you but could you please call me when you are home?”

Macro-strategy 4: Off- record

This strategy uses indirect language and removes the speaker from the potential to being imposing For example, a speaker using the indirect strategy might merely say “wow, it‟s getting cold in here” insinuating that it would be nice if the listener would get up and turn up the thermostat without directly asking the listener to

do so Linguistics realizations of off-record strategies include metaphor and irony, rhetorical questions, understatements and all kinds of hints Doing an act badly and without redress involves doing it in the most direct, clear, unambiguous and concise way Normally, a FTA is done in this way only if S does not fear of threatening H‟s face

The following part will go further into FSSs, including PPSs and NPSs, which will be useful for the analysis of teachers‟ oral feedback in classroom discourse in the latter chapters of the study

II 4 Face-Saving Strategies

II.4.1 Positive Politeness Strategies

According to Brown and Levinson (1987:01), positive politeness is:

“…redress directed to the addressee‟s positive face, his perennial desire that his wants (or the actions/acquisitions/values resulting from them) should be thought of as desirable Redress consists in partially satisfying that desire by communicating that one‟s own wants (or some of them) are in some respects similar to the addressee‟s wants”

Positive politeness, then, pays attention to the hearer‟s positive face wants, for example, by claiming common ground or inclusiveness such as “Give me the pencil, mate”, where “mate” functions to construe a friendly, “group inclusive” relationship

In short, positive politeness has three main mechanisms:

- Claim common ground

- Convey that S and H are cooperators

- Fulfil H‟s want for some X

Followings are different strategies that are addressed to different realizations

of positive face (proposed by Brown and Levinson, 1987)

A/ Claim common ground

Strategy 1 Notice, attend to H

People mostly have the desire to be noticed (to be praised, or commented on, positively or neutrally) when they do something good, have something new, etc In general, this strategy can be generalized by:

1 S‟s compliments on admiration towards H

2 S‟s relations, sympathy towards H

3 S‟s acceptance of H‟s bad news or failures

For example: (1) Goodness, a beautiful hairstyle! (After a while) Oh, by the way, can

I borrow your bike?

This strategy is also used in case the action, the change, the idea or the properties are considered negative and/or inappropriate by both S and H S, on one

hand shows that he/she attends to that, on the other hand, considers it as normal and he/she may do the same thing

For example: (2) My mom often scolds at me like that!

Strategy 2 Exaggerate (interest, approval, sympathy with H)

Ss tend to exaggerate their interests, appreciation or approval towards Hs

For example: (3) My God? You made this cake? It‟s incredible!

Intensifiers such as “really, terribly, extremely, perfectly, badly” are mostly used in this strategy Reduplication is also common

Strategy 3 Intensify interest to hearer in S’s contribution

There are 4 different ways to implement this strategy

1 Make „a good story‟ in order to increase the interest to H

For example: (4) When I was driving on the street yesterday morning, a man suddenly approached me You know what happened? He tried to plundered the bad on my motorbike Hah! Guess what I did at that moment? I kicked hard at him He fell off his motorbike right away Many people stopped by and kept him there I called the police and he was arrested Well, I don‟t know why I could be so brave at that time

2 Switch forth and back between past and present tenses

For example: (5) In this sub-strategy, the S uses the present tenses and past tenses in order to attract the H‟s attention, though the S is telling a story in the past and it has little relation to the present Let‟s take an example in Brown and Levinson (1987:106)

For example: (5) Black I like I used to wear it more than I do now, I very rarely wear

it now I wore a black jumper And when I wear it my Mum says „Ah‟ she said But Len likes it, he thinks it looks ever so nice and quite a few people do But when my Mum sees it she said „Oh, it‟s not your colour, you‟re more for pinks and blues‟

3 Use directly quoted speech: It is noticeable that this sub-strategy should only be used when the reported speech has a positive effect on H

For example: Instead of saying “The professor said he couldn‟t believe you could do such a good job”, we say:

(6) The professor said “Oh, I couldn‟t believe that he could do such a good job”

4 Exaggerate facts

For example: (7) Hey don‟t cry for him Millions of men out there want to be with

you

Strategy 4 Use in-group identity markers

By using a number of ways to convey in-group membership, S can implicitly claim the common ground with H This strategy includes the followings sub- strategies:

1 Use address forms

In general, personal names and generic names are often used as in-group identity markers for solidarity semantic

For example: (8) Come over here, honey!

2 Use dialect or in-group language

S may use different types of code-switching in this strategy:

+ Switch from formal language to informal language

+ Switch from standard language to dialect

+ Switch from one language to another language

3 Use jargon or slang

This is an effective way to enhance in-group identity of interactants as only those from the same group have the understanding of what is being mentioned

For example: Talking to the coffee waiter: (9) Two black!

4 Use contraction or ellipsis

S, intentionally or unintentionally, implies that both S and H have the same understanding of what is being mentioned

For example: (10)- Want a Mal?

- Sure!

Strategy 5 Seek agreement in safe topics

In order to reach the agreement between S and H, S often puts three different policies into practice:

Wow, how beautiful you are today! You look so stylish in this dress! If I could go to

the New Year party with you tonight, it‟d be my great pleasure

2/Repetition

S repeats partially or fully what his/her communicator has just uttered This strategy is often used to enhance relationship rather than giving information

For example: (12) A: I went to Venice last week

B: What? Venice? Oh God, that‟s great!

3/ Minimal encouragers

S uses minimal encouragers to express his/her agreement or encouragement to his/her

communicator For example: (13) Definitely, absolutely, That‟s true, Nothing truer, etc

Strategy 6 Avoid disagreement

It is a common practice in most cultures to avoid disagreement in communication as it is considered as a strong FTA

1/Token agreement

Using this strategy, S can first approve of H, then reveals his/her own view

Positive – Negative axis (Nguyen, 2002)

For example: (14) I agree with most of what you say, but I think you should

reconsider this point

2/ Pseudo agreement

S often uses conclusory markers such as then, so in this strategy It indicates

that S is drawing a conclusion and this may refer to a genuine prior agreement

For example: (15) I‟ll see you on Saturday, then

3/ White lies

In many situations, S rather tells lie rather than damage H‟s positive face Both

S and H may know that it is not true, but the addressee still wants to receive a FSA or

a FFA (Nguyen, 2003) In English, S often uses lead-in or gambit before telling white lies to claim disagreement

For example: (16) A: Would you please go to the cinema with me this Saturday

evening?

B: I‟d love to But what a pity, I am visiting my grandmother this weekend [Actually, B has not got any plan yet.]

4/ Hedging

In this strategy, S often uses hedges to make his/her opinions vague, so as not

to be seen as disagreement Hedges may also be used to soften FTAs of criticizing, by blurring S‟s intention

For example: (17) I sort of don‟t like the shirt!

Strategy 7 Presuppose, praise, assert common ground

1/ Small talk

This strategy can be demonstrated as follows

S comes to see H (with or without a gift) in order to ask for help or to offer H

to do something, which is, from S‟s perspective, useful for S him/herself and may cause trouble, discomfort for H When starting the conversation, S will not go straight to the main points, but talk about some irrelevant stories According to Nguyen Quang (2003), this strategy is rather common and effective in the Vietnamese culture

2/ Deixis inversion

The use of deixis inversion can set up a closer relationship among interactants There are three typical types of deixis inversion

a/ Personal deixis inversion

S speaks as if H has the same understanding and experience about what is being mentioned as S Question-tags and cajolers are often used for this purpose

For example: (18) Water, canals, gondolas are everywhere in Venice, aren‟t they?

[Though S knows that H has never been to Venice]

b/ Time deixis inversion

Time deixis inversion is demonstrated through two main ways: Use present verbs to talk about actions in the past or use directed speech

For example: (19) He (said) says he (had enjoyed) enjoys the party enormously

c/ Spatial deixis inversion

In this sub-strategy, proximal demonstratives such as “here, right here, this, like this”

or distal demonstratives such as “there, over there, that, like that” are used When S

wants to express his/her emotion and closeness, proximal can be used instead of distal demonstratives

According to Brown and Levinson (1987), proximal demonstratives or spatial metaphors of closeness can be used to make the utterances more polite or impolite For example:

To make the utterance more polite: (20) Here! You must come in and have some tea

To make the utterance more impolite: (21) Here! How dare you! Get out of here right away!

Strategy 8 Joke (to put the hearer at ease)

Jokes are made and responded to based on a succession of presuppositions that

S and H shared the same values and understanding of what is being mentioned Though making jokes can be a good way to soften the FTAs, in order to reach the goal both S and H have to be highly sensitive and the jokes have to be sensible

B/ Convey that S and H are cooperators

Strategy 9 Assert or presuppose knowledge of and concern for hearer’s wants

In this strategy, S wants to assure H that he/she fully understands/knows H‟s wants and that S and H are well-cooperated Brown and Levinson (1987:125) believe

that “one way of indicating that S and H are cooperators, and thus potentially to put pressure on H to cooperate with S, is to assert or imply knowledge of H‟s wants and willingness to fit one‟s own wants in with them”

For example: (22) I know/ I believe that you‟ve tried your best

Strategy 10 Offer/ Promise

S often offers or promises to do something for H, or claims that “whatever H wants, S wants for him and will help to obtain” (Brown and Levinson, 1987:125) in

order to redress for the threat of FTAs This strategy is used to gain or stress the solidarity between S and H, or at least if the offers or promises are false, they demonstrate S‟s good intentions in satisfying H‟s positive face wants

For example: (23) You‟ll get better someday Don‟t worry

Strategy 11 Be optimistic that the hearer wants what the speakers want

Nguyen Quang (2003) believes that this is one of the most typical strategies of positive politeness With this strategy, S assumes that H wants what S wants, or the relationship between S and H are so close that what S says is obvious

To make the utterances flow well, S uses some tricks such as: understaters, appealers, token tags, downtoners, conventional gambits and talking up

For example: (24) I am borrowing your laptop for just a moment, ok?

Strategy 12 Include both S and H in the activity

S often uses the pronoun “we” in order to stress that S and H are “in the same boat” (Nguyen Quang, 2002:73), and at the same time reduce the threat of the FTAs

rather than to involve S into some actions

For example: (25) Let‟s shut the door It‟s crazily cold

Strategy 13 Give or ask for reasons

Asking for or giving reasons is one way the S shows his/her concerns towards

H or S claims that “giving reasons is a way of implying “I can help you” or “you can help me”, (Brown and Levinson, 1987:128)

For example: (26) Why don‟t you turn on the light?

Strategy 14 Assume or assert reciprocity

Giving evidence of reciprocity or obligations obtaining between S and H demonstrates the cooperation between S and H This cooperation is realized in action, event and communicative situations by rights or obligations of reciprocity S may say

“I‟ll do something for you if you do something for me”, “You did it yesterday so I‟ll

do it today”

C/ Fulfil H’s want (for some X)

Strategy 15 Give gifts to H (goods, sympathy, understanding, cooperation)

S can satisfy H‟s positive wants by actually satisfying some of H‟s wants This strategy implies that S has concerns towards H and understands H‟s wants, and to some extent, may share the same interests with H

Besides the above 15 strategies, Nguyen Quang (2003) suggests two more PPSs

Strategy 16 Console or Encourage

In this strategy, S may share his/her sympathy, understanding or cooperation with H By using consolations or encouragements, S expresses concerns to H, understands H‟s problems or shortens the gap between S and H

For example: (27) Don‟t worry You‟ve done very well

Strategy 17 Asking personal questions

People from a negative politeness – oriented culture may be shocked when being asked personal questions, especially in the first meeting However, in positive politeness-oriented cultures, asking personal questions is easily and comfortably accepted as it is an effective way to show S‟s concern

For example: (28) How many children do you have?

II.4.2 Negative politeness

Negative politeness, according to Brown and Levinson (1987:70) is “a redressive action addressed to the addressee‟s negative face: his want to have his freedom of action unhindered and his attention impeded.” If positive politeness aims

at shortening the distance between S and H, negative politeness maintains the distance between them It performs the function of minimizing the particular imposition that the FTA unavoidably effects

Brown and Levinson (1987) suggest five mechanisms of negative politeness:

- Being direct

- Don‟t pressure/assume

- Don‟t coarse H (where X involves H doing A)

- Communicate S‟s want not to impinge on H

- Redress other wants of H‟s, derivate from negative face

These mechanisms, in turn, are realized by the following strategies:

Strategy 1 Being conventionally indirect

By using conventional indirectness, S satisfies his/her desire in communication with H: the desire to go on record and the desire to express S‟s wants

off record In this case, S uses phrases or sentences that have “contextually unambiguous meanings” (Brown and Levinson, 1987:132) which are different from

their literal meanings The utterances then go on record and at the same time, S indicates his desire to have gone off record

For example: (29) Could you please bring me the book tomorrow?

Strategy 2 Question, Hedge

Instead of giving a direct request, using hedge stems from the want that S does not want to force H into any kind of action Brown and Levinson (1987:145) identify

“hedges” as “a particle, word, or phrase that modifies the degree of membership of a predicate or a noun phrase in a set” According to these authors, hedges can be

considered based on illocutionary force and Grice‟s principle

In terms of illocutionary force, hedge can be classified into those that are encoded in words/ particles and those that are encoded in phrases – clauses The first type is then divided into strengtheners (emphatic hedges) and weakeners (soften or tentativize what they modify)

For example: (30) I told you, he‟s just my colleague

For example: (32) To a certain extent, she‟s been a good wife

It is noticeable that the “if” clause is rather useful and effective in this strategy

For example: (33) If you don’t mind, I‟d like to close the door

As regard Grice‟s principles, there are four principles namely Quality, Quantity, Relevance and Manner The Quality principle is used to either reduce the reality of the utterance, and thus, Ss do not have much responsibility for what they have just uttered; or to emphasize the reality of the utterance and the responsibility of

Ss for it

For example: (34) I suppose that he wants to invite you to the party

The Quantity principle is used to remind H that the information that S provides can be not enough and exact as H expects

For example: (35) He gave her a book or something

The Relevance principle is often violated in order to avoid going straight into the main point and thus, reduce the FTA of the utterance that S is going to make

For example: (36) Before I forget, I need the book on Saturday this week, so please

return it to me on Friday

The Manner principle is used to make clear the communicative intentions In the line of communication, S indirectly confesses that what he/she said before was not clear enough, and thus makes it easier for H to understand This principle also functions in checking whether H fully gets what S wants to express or to ensure that what has been heard from the communicator is exact

For example: (37) To put it more simply, you will work on part 1 and part 2 and I will

2 Use downtoners (or pessimistic hedges) in order to reduce the probability of the utterance In this case, S wants to prove that S is not sure whether H will do what S wants, or the information given is exact or not

For example: (39) It might be an idea to go home early

3 Use negative form in order to imply that S appears to be pessimistic about the fact that H will do what S asks for Encodings of polite pessimism are quite common in both English and Vietnamese

For example: (40) I don’t suppose there’d be any chance of you to see her by the end

of this year

Strategy 4 Minimize the imposition

This strategy aims at making the speech act less threatening to H‟s negative face wants by resorting mostly to lexico-modal markers In this strategy, downtoners and understates are commonly used

For example: (41) Could I have a taste of that cake?

Strategy 5 Give deference

According to Nguyen Quang (2003), giving deference is an extremely important strategy of negative politeness As regard social factors P-D-R, this strategy

is enforced by D and P There are two main ways to demonstrate this strategy:

1 Lift H:

2 Lower S:

In this strategy, S may use either “honorific label” for H or “dishonorific label” for self or use both kinds of label for S and H

For example: (42) Professor Harris, we look forward to dining out with you

Strategy 6 Apologize

Apologizing is used when S wants to prove that he/she clearly understands that he/she is about to trouble H or say something that is may affect H‟s negative face, and thus S is very sorry for this FTA There are several ways of apologizing

1 Apologize directly

S apologizes directly for causing trouble to H or to expresses the sympathy about what S is about to say

For example:

a Apologize directly: (43) Sorry to interrupt, but that‟s not what I want to hear

b Express sympathy: (44) I am sorry to say that you are not accepted this time

Apologizing directly can also be realized by the action of begging for forgiveness by

S for what S is going to say as it may cause trouble to H

For example: (45) Forgive me/ Excuse me for calling you this late

2 Apologize indirectly

There are five main ways to demonstrate the indirect apology They are:

a Admit trouble: Causing trouble to others is a negative face threatening act S already knows that what he/she is going to do will trouble H, so he/she indirectly apologize for that

For example: (46) Please do me a favour by picking me up by 6 p.m

b Express reluctance: S expresses her/his reluctance with the intention to show that he/she really does not want to trouble H or refuse the offer made by H

For example: (47) I feel bad about troubling you, but I really need your help

c Abase and Complain about self: This is a direct or indirect way to prove that S does not have the ability/knowledge/potential to do something for H By using this strategy, S wants to indirectly apologize for not do what H asked for

For example: (48) You know I am such a loser in football

d Raise unavoidable reasons: By raising unavoidable reasons, S wants to prove that he/she really does not want to trouble H, but he/she has no other choice, and thus, making negative FTA is unavoidable When raising the unavoidable reasons, it is acceptable that S wants to apologize indirectly

For example: (49) Could you help me to choose a birthday gift for my mother? I could not think of no one else who could help me

e Hope and Promise: Expressing hope as an act of apology is used to reduce the imposition of an offer or asking for help

For example: (50) I hope it won‟t take much of your time

Promising is used to prove that on one hand, the S knows that the offer he/she makes

is troublesome to H On the other hand, the S proves that this action will never happen again or there will be a redress for the trouble that H has to bear

For example: (51) This is the last time, I promise!

Strategy 7 Impersonalize

It is possible to avoid mentioning S and H in communication so that S can lower S‟s power and reduce the imposition of the act as well as minimize the threat over H There are several ways to demonstrate this strategy:

1 Avoid performative verbs: In order to ensure Grice‟s Manner principle, when expressing S‟s wants or requests, he/she have to use performatives verbs However, these verbs can make the threatening of face, so Ss often omit them as well as the first and second personal pronoun

For example: (52) Instead of saying “I request that you raise this issue in the next

meeting”, S say “Please raise this issue in the next meeting.”

2 Use imperatives: Using imperatives itself is a high face threatening act However, if the communicative content of the imperative act is beneficial to H, the threat over H‟s negative face is minimized

For example: (53) Come quickly in It‟s very cold outside

3 Use Passive voice: When S cannot avoid saying something that is not beneficial

to H, or S wants to create a distance between he/she and H, S tend to use the passive voice

For example: (54) It is expected that the report is finished by 12 p.m tonight

4 Use indefinite pronouns:

For example: (55) It is important that you prepare the lessons before going to class

5 Use impersonalized subject: When impersonalized subject is used, the involvement

of S and what is going to be said are reduced

For example: (56) One shouldn‟t do such a thing

6 Avoid mentioning H‟s real name:

For example: (57) Stay where you are, Miss!

Strategy 8 State the FTA as a general rule

This strategy is used on many purposes : to space S and H, to avoid imposition, to give offer/suggestion/ advice as a general rule for a group in which H is a member or

a general rule for everyone, including S and H

For example: (58) Customers are advised not to leave their values and wallet in the lockers

Strategy 9 Nominalise

The more nouns are used in an utterance, the colder the statement becomes

For example: (59) Instead of saying “That you come to the party today makes us feel

honored “, we say “Your attendance at the party today is our great honor.”

Strategy 10 Go on record or incurring a debt

When giving an offer or asking for help or borrowing something, S may show that S

is indebted to H (indirectly or directly) or that H is worth praising

For example: (60) I’d be grateful if you could lend me the book

When giving an offer to help, S may also use this strategy However, in contrast to the above case, when offering to help, S should make clear that this act of helping is easy and H does not have to be indebted to S

For example: (61) When you have any trouble, do not hesitate to call me

III Oral Feedback

In English classrooms, most of teacher-student interactions follow IRF

patterns “Initiation- Response – Feedback”, which is “commonly the dominant form

of exchange”, (Pauline Gibbons, 2002:116) In the IRF sequence, teacher initiates an

exchange, usually in the form of questions, one of students answers and then teacher gives feedbacks, and so on, (Sinclair and Coutlhard, 1975) Thus, it can be said that feedback plays a very important role in language learning and teaching environment Without a proper feedback from teacher, learners would be at a loss of specifying their own position in the process of studying a foreign language Brookhart

(2008:01) thinks that feedback is “an important component of the formative assessment process” which “gives information to teachers and students about how students are doing relative to classroom learning goals.”

Ur (1996:242) defines feedback as the “information that is given to the learner about his or her performance of a learning task, usually with the objective of improving this performance” Littlewood (1981) and Lewis (2002) also point out

that feedback means telling learners about their progress and their errors in order to guide them to areas of improvement

Feedback itself can be classified into different types Gallutto (2000) and Harmer (2001) divide feedback into three types: corrective, evaluative and strategic Corrective Feedback (CF) points out learners‟ errors and helps them to correct their errors In language learning, this type of feedback primarily is concerned with accuracy CF is normally given by the teacher right after the students make any

mistakes, particularly in speaking EF (EF) aims at providing a judgment on the learner‟s performance Finally, SF usually aims to provide learners with advice on what to do to improve their performance Tsui (1995) believes that using SF may enhance learning as it can help learners to be more self-reliant

In addition, feedback can also be categorized into either negative or positive feedback Positive feedback refers to the praise from the teachers and the response the teachers give in order to communicate with learners Negative feedback refers to teachers‟ direct correction of learners‟ errors and criticism Many researchers, such as McNamara (1999) and Ayoun (2001), agree that teachers‟ feedback can have great impact on learner‟s attitudes and performance and that favorable feedbacks have positive effect and may result in better performance Nunan (1991) holds that positive feedback is much more effective than negative one in changing learner‟s behavior

As of its impact on learner‟s performance, feedback seems to be one of sensitive areas which is believed to involve a lot of FTAs Teacher‟s feedback constitutes one-third of the total talking in traditional classrooms with IRF model in English classrooms, (Hewings, 1992), thus, it is necessary that teachers be very careful with the language they use in the classroom context in order to minimize negative effects as the classroom interaction moves towards a social activity where politeness principles are employed In other words, it is advisable for teachers to use appropriate politeness strategies to save learners‟ face whenever giving feedback to them, and at the same time enhance their performance and attitudes toward English classroom atmosphere

CHAPTER III METHODOLOGY

I Aims of the study

The study aims at investigating the politeness strategies used by American teachers (Ats) and Vietnamese teachers (VTs) to save students‟ face in English classrooms when giving feedback In addition, the research examines the differences and similarities between the strategies that VTs and ATs apply in the same situations

II Research questions

In order to meet the aims of the study, the following research questions are generated:

 What FSSs are used by ATs and VTs when orally giving feedback in order to save students‟ face?

 What are the differences between the FSSs used by each group for HaF and HoF?

 What are the similarities and differences between strategies used by ATs and VTs?

The thesis author begins with preliminary working hypotheses, based on literature review of face-saving strategies and oral feedback in the previous chapter:

 PPSs is used more often for HoF and NPSs more often for HaF

 VTs use more PPSs and less NPSs than ATs

III Populations and Sampling: Participants

Thirty ATs (15 males, 15 females) and thirty VTs (15 males, 15 females) participated in the study The American participants come from different cities in the United States and used to work or are now working in universities throughout Vietnam The Vietnamese ones come from the Faculty of English, Hanoi University

of Languages and International Studies

IV Data Collection

IV.1 The Discourse Completion Tasks

At first, the researcher intended to do audio recordings and class observation

in different English classes of VTs and ATs; then the recordings would be transcribed and the strategies classified and counted However, after a few English classes, the author soon realized the infeasibility of this method in doing the research The recordings are not adequately audible because the conversations include a lot of background noise, especially when the classroom is quite large Besides, with about

30 class observations as intended, transcribing would surely requires a lot of time and effort to complete The last but most important reason is that the source of ATs teaching in universities in Hanoi is not as available as is required Therefore, though the author is fully aware of the necessity and the authenticity of direct audio recordings, she used a survey questionnaire in the form of DCTs for the collection of data

A DCT using written questionnaire is appropriate for this study because it has some specific advantages Wolfson, Marmor, and Jones (1989) describe the use of the DCT as an effective means of gathering a large number of data in a relatively short period A large number of participants can be surveyed with the DCT more easily than role plays, thus making statistical analysis more feasible Within the time constraints of the present study, this methodology works well Besides, the DCT is an effective means of creating an initial classification of semantic formulas and strategies that will occur in natural speech (Cohen, 1996:25) It can be seen that this method has been widely used in pragmatic research: Ikoma and Shimura (1994) in refusals; Blum- Kulka and Olshtain (1984) for requests; Banerjee and Carrel (1988) for suggestions

However, there are some disadvantages when using this type of data It is not natural speech It is more accurately described as a record of what subjects think they would say, or perhaps what they want the researcher to think they would say, rather than a record of real behavior This might lead to responses that differ from natural speech patterns This method has also been challenged by scholars who question the difference between participants‟ answers and what they actually say in real-life

conversations (Rintell and Mitchell, 1989) Moreover, the DCT cannot show “the depth of the emotion that affects the tone, content, and form of linguistic performance” (Beebe and Cummins 1996:80)