Chiến lược lịch sự áp dụng trong đàm phán lương của nữ người Việt Nam và nữ các nước nói tiếng Anh trong môi trường làm việc đa văn hóa tại Việt Nam = politeness strategies employed in salary negotiation by vietnamese and anglophone females in multi - cul

UNIVERSITY OF LANGUAGES AND INTERNATIONAL STUDIES DEPARTMENT OF POST-GRADUATE STUDIES ĐOÀN THỊ THU HẰNG POLITENESS STRATEGIES EMPLOYED IN SALARY NEGOTIATION BY VIETNAMESE AND ANGLOPHON

UNIVERSITY OF LANGUAGES AND INTERNATIONAL STUDIES

DEPARTMENT OF POST-GRADUATE STUDIES

ĐOÀN THỊ THU HẰNG

POLITENESS STRATEGIES EMPLOYED IN SALARY NEGOTIATION BY VIETNAMESE AND ANGLOPHONE FEMALES IN MULTI-CULTURAL WORKPLACE IN

UNIVERSITY OF LANGUAGES AND INTERNATIONAL STUDIES

DEPARTMENT OF POST-GRADUATE STUDIES

ĐOÀN THỊ THU HẰNG

POLITENESS STRATEGIES EMPLOYED IN SALARY NEGOTIATION BY VIETNAMESE AND ANGLOPHONE FEMALES IN MULTI-CULTURAL WORKPLACE IN

TABLE OF CONTENTS

DECLARATION ……….i

ACKNOWLEDGEMENT ……… ii

ABSTRACT ………iii

TABLE OF CONTENTS ………iv

LIST OF ABBREVIATIONS ……….v

LIST OF TABLES ……… vi

LIST OF DIAGRAMS/CHARTS ……… vii

PART 1: INTRODUCTION 1

1.1 Rationale of the study 1

1.2 Significance of the study 2

1.3 Scope and scale of the study 2

1.4 Objectives of the study 2

1.5 Methodology of the study 3

1.6 Organization of the study 4

PART 2: DEVELOPMENT 5

CHAPTER 1: LITERATURE REVIEW 5

2.1.1 Introduction of speech acts: definition & classification 5

2.1.1.1 Definition of speech acts 5

2.1.1.2 Classification of speech acts 5

2.1.1.3 Classification of illocutionary acts 7

2.1.2 Speech acts in salary negotiation 11

2.1.2.1 General concepts of negotiation 11

2.1.2.1.1 Definition of negotiation 11

2.1.2.1.2 Approaches of negotiation 13

2.1.2.1.2 1 Positional Bargaining 13

2.1.2.1.2 2 Interest-Based Bargaining 15

2.1.2.2 Salary negotiation and speech acts in salary negotiation 18

2.1.2.2.1 After receiving a new job offer 18

2.1.2.2.2 Annual salary review 18

2.1.2.2.3 Salary rise proposed by the Employer 19

2.1.2.2.4 Salary rise requested by the Employee 19

2.1.3.1 The concept of face 21

2.1.3.2 Definition of politeness 21

2.1.3.3 Social factors and politeness 22

2.1.3.4 Major pragmatics principles 24

2.1.3.4.1 Grice’s Cooperative Principle 24

2.1.3.4.2 Lakoff’s Conversational – Maxim Approach 25

2.1.3.4.3 Leech’s Politeness Principle (PP) 26

2.1.3.4.4 Brown and Levinson’s theory of politeness 27

2.1.3.5 Politeness strategies 29

2.1.3.5.1 Bald on record strategy 29

2.1.3.5.2 Positive politeness strategy 29

2.1.3.5.3 Negative politeness strategy 32

2.1.3.5.4 Off-record strategy 35

CHAPTER 2: METHODOLOGY 39

2.2.1 Overview of the research methods 39

2.2.2 Design of the study 40

2.2.2.1 Selection of informants 40

2.2.2.2 Data collection instrument 42

2.2.2.3 Data collection and processing procedure 45

CHAPTER 3: DATA PRESENTATION AND DICUSSION 47

2.3.1 The types of salary negotiation experienced by the informants 47

2.3.2 The respondents’ personal information 48

2.3.3 Respondents’ habit and opinion on salary negotiation 55

2.3.4 Most recent salary negotiation experience 61

2.3.5 Politeness strategies employed in respondents’ salary negotiation experience 65

PART 3: CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS 91

3.1 Major findings and conclusions 91

3.2 Recommendations 97

3.3 Limitations of the research and suggestions for further studies 102

REFERENCES 104

Bank form of questionnaire

LIST OF ABBREVIATIONS

DCTs Discourse completion tasks

FTAs Face threatening acts

MCQs Multiple choice questions

NGOs Non-governmental/non profitable organizations

LIST OF TABLES

Table 1 Speech acts classification proposed by Yule, G (1996) 7 Table 2 Positive politeness strategies – names & examples 29 Table 3 Negative politeness strategies – names & examples 33 Table 4 Off-record/indirect strategies – names & examples 36 Table 5 Summary of politeness strategies in respondents’ answers to the question:

What is your expected salary?

69

Table 6 Summary of politeness strategies used in respondents’ answers when X-4

is offered for the first time

71

Table 7 Summary of politeness strategies used in respondents’ answers to the

employers’ insistence on X-4 for the second time

73

Table 8 Summary of politeness strategies used in respondents’ answers to the

employer’s proposal for X-2 as the highest level he/she can offer

75

Table 9 Summary of politeness strategies used in respondents’ proposal for salary

rise in annual personal talk

78

Table

10

Summary of politeness strategies used in respondents’ answers to

employers’ refusals for salary rise in annual talk

79

Table

11

Summary of politeness strategies used in respondents’ proposals for

salary rise (not annual talk, same responsibilities)

82

Table

12

Summary of politeness strategies used in respondents’ answers to

employers’ refusals for salary rise (not annual talk, same responsibilities)

83

Table

13

Summary of politeness strategies used in respondents’ proposal for salary

rise (not annual talk, same responsibilities)

86

Table

14

Politeness strategies used in respondents’ answers to employer's refusal

for salary rise (not annual talk, more responsibilities)

LIST OF CHARTS/DIAGRAMS

Diagram 1 Pragmatics rules suggested by Lakoff R 25 Diagram 2 Diagram of five strategies proposed by Brown & Levinson 28 Chart 1 Types of salary negotiation experienced by respondents 47

Chart 3 Anglophone respondents’ nationalities 49 Chart 4 Respondents’ positions/job tittles 50 Chart 5 English levels of Vietnamese respondents 51 Chart 6 Number of respondents’ working years 52 Chart 7 Number of jobs changed by respondents 53 Chart 8 Number of promotions attained by respondents 53 Chart 9 Respondents’ satisfaction of their current salaries 54 Chart 10 Pro-activeness in approaching employers (Sit 1.2.1 in

affected?

63

Chart 17 Factors affecting salary negotiation 64

Chart 18 Respondents’ rating of their bargaining power over the

employer upon job offer

66

Chart 19 Politeness strategies in respondents’ answers to the question:

What is your expected salary?

Chart 22 Respondents’ answers to the employer’s proposal for X-2 as the

highest level he/she can offer

74

Chart 23 Respondents’ rating of their bargaining power over the

employer in annual personal talk

Chart 26 Respondents’ rating of their bargaining power in SN (not annual

talk, same responsibilities)

80

Chart 27 Respondents’ proposals for salary rise (not annual talk, same

responsibilities)

81

Chart 28 Respondents’ answers to employers’ refusals for salary rise (not

annual talk, same responsibilities)

82

Chart 29 Respondents’ rating of their bargaining power in SN (not annual

talk, more responsibilities)

84

Chart 30 Respondents’ proposal for salary rise (not annual talk, more

responsibilities)

85

Chart 31 Respondents’ answers to employer's refusal for salary rise (not

annual talk, more responsibilities)

86

PART 1: INTRODUCTION

1.1 Rationale of the study

In the past years, women‟s integration into the workplace has without doubt become wider and deeper in all aspects of the working life with the most easily recognized phenomenon of women performing tasks which are far beyond the limit of simple or assisting jobs Instead, more and more opportunities are offered to involve women in taking over jobs which require more professional, analytical and even managerial skills – those who used to be considered suitable and manageable by men only (Rizzo, A.M & Mendez, C., 1990) The question of how women handle problems arising in their workplace, much to the author of this paper‟s investigation, has not received a good deal of academic attention and studies Yet, there have been few researchers are attracted to this area of research in response to the fact that

"skepticism surrounding women's ability to adopt managerial roles and responsibilities has prevailed since the advent of women within the corporate hierarchy" (Portello & Long, 1994) These researchers want to explore and explode the traditional view, long an impediment to women's progress through the managerial ranks, that women are not "as good as men" at negotiating Other theorists, taking to heart either traditional cultural stereotypes or the theories of cultural feminists, have sought to explore whether women really do speak in "a different voice" than men when negotiating (Korabik, Baril, & Watson, 1993)

Deriving from the initial interest in the topic of females‟ participation in the workplace, after a period of time searching for necessary documents from different sources such as books, articles, magazines, previously implemented studies in the University Library and on the Internet, the author of this paper (here-and-after referred as “the researcher”) has realized that: Negotiation in the workplace is the common topic which has been discussed in general terms by a numbers of scholars and researchers; nevertheless, salary negotiation (SN) has not yet been of popular research topic and received only basic academic concern Especially, the roles and abilities of women in handling workplace negotiation have not yet been studied in great focus

Even in the documents or works that deal with SN issues, the link between the achievement of SN results and the employment of related strategies such as negotiation strategies, persuasion strategies, politeness strategies (PSs), etc has not been clearly defined The researcher, besides having a special personal interest in the topic of the relationship between PSs and SN, is currently working in a multi-cultural workplace where most of the colleagues are females of both Vietnamese and Anglo-saxon nationalities Additionally, thanks to the so called “network” relationship in the current workplace, the researcher believes

to be able to get contacts with a necessary number of Vietnamese and Anglophone females in the sector These factors, added with the fact that previous studies launched at the university have not dealt with the topic, have created an urge for the researcher to initiate the M.A thesis namely: “Politeness strategies employed in salary negotiation by Vietnamese and Anglophone females in multi-cultural workplace in Vietnam”

1.2 Significance of the study

The study would hopefully be of practical use for not only females working in multi-cultural workplace but also for working people in general Moreover, the research would optimistically become a good reference source for those who are particularly concerned about the utilization

of PSs in workplace and SN If implemented successfully, this study would open up a fairly new research topic which has rarely been done at the University before The research would also be a great contribution to other studies related to communication and negotiation skills 1.3 Scope and scale of the study

As the research title suggests, this study focuses on the employment of PSs in SN by Vietnamese and Anglophone females in multi-cultural workplace Moreover, due to the factual working conditions of the researcher, the study will be implemented with the participation of females who are working in multi-cultural environment in Hanoi Capital, Vietnam Multi-cultural workplace is limited to NGOs & foreign aided projects in which regular contacts between people of different nationalities are commonly found

1.4 Objectives of the study

The research is launched in order to investigate the utilization of PSs in typical situations of

SN by Vietnamese and Anglophone females in their multi-cultural workplace in Vietnam Specifically, the study aims at finding answers to the research questions:

1 What are Vietnamese and Anglophone females‟ general understanding and common habits

- Vietnamese females may not have sound understanding and greatly appropriate habits in

SN Anglophone females, thanks to the experience of working overseas, may be better equipped with such concerns; however, certain limits can still be found and suggestions made for a better change

- Due to the difference in cultures, mainly between oriental and European cultures, Vietnamese and Anglophone females, despite working in the same environment and possessing certain characteristics in similarity, will tend to employ different kinds of PSs (Vietnamese may tend to use more positive and indirect strategies whereas Anglophone will turn more to negative strategies) Therefore, they will achieve different outcomes after SN partly because of the difference mentioned above and added by other related factors

The research will be conducted in seek of the answers to the above-mentioned factors and to prove the hypotheses developed in advance

1.5 Methods of the study

The study is conducted with the combination mainly of deductive and inductive methods The deductive method involves beginning with a general concept or given rule and moving on to a more specific conclusion; whereas inductive method is a process of using observations to develop general principles about a specific subject In this study, a theoretical background concerning the research issue is developed based on the review of related literature, and the inductive method is utilized to prove the hypotheses made before the research Importantly, embedded in the study is the utilization of quantitative & qualitative methods with questionnaire as the primary research tool added with and explained by notes taken during discussions with informants Additionally, personal observations and consultation from experienced people working in the research field will make considerable contribution to the analysis and discussion of the survey results

1.6 Organization of the study

Following the standard format, the study is divided into three main parts namely Part 1 Introduction, Part 2 - Development and Part 3 - Conclusions and Recommendations Part 1 provides general and primary information such as the rationale, significance, scope and scale, objectives and methodology of the research Part 2 consists of three Chapters which are: Literature Review, Methodology, Data Presentation and Discussion The first Chapter reviews the related literature, specifically the overview of speech acts theories including necessary details of PSs and the overview of negotiation in the workplace with focus on SN The viewpoints and ideas of the scholars added with the findings of previous related studies are also embedded in this Chapter Chapter 2 introduces the research overall methodology, major approaches applied, data collection instruments utilized and procedures taken The presentation and discussion of data collected can be found in Chapter 3 of this part Part 3 embraces the research major findings, conclusions, recommendations of the research and suggestions for further studies References and annexes that include the blank form of questionnaire and other related documents are put in the last pages of the paper

-PART 2: DEVELOPMENT

CHAPTER 1: LITERATURE REVIEW

2.1.1 Introduction of speech acts: definition & classification

2.1.1.1 Definition of speech acts

The philosopher J.L Austin (1911-1960) who first introduced and used the term “speech acts” claims that many utterances (things people say) are equivalent to actions When someone says:

“I name this ship Titanic” or “I now pronounce you husband and wife”, those utterance creates

a new social or psychological reality Those utterances not only contain grammatical and lexical factors but also perform actions, i.e in saying something, the speaker does something (Austin, 1962) The actions performed via utterances for the purpose of communicating are called speech acts Since its creation by J.L Austin, the concept of speech acts has become central in the studies of a number of philosophers and linguists namely Grice (1957, 1975), Hymes (1964), Searle (1969, 1975, 1979), Levinson, Brown and Jule (1983), Mey (1993), Thomas (1995), etc

According to Verschueren (1977), speech acts are used in everyday life in the form of thanking, congratulating, concluding, ordering, requesting, promising, threatening, etc In daily conversations, sentences are used rather independently from their lexical and grammatical meanings For instance, on meeting friends Vietnamese people may ask “How are you?” which may be interpreted as a greeting rather than a serious question about health Richards (1985) also emphasizes:

“Speech acts are acts in nature, not sentences There is no one utterance – one function limitation A single utterance can have more than one function For example, the utterance “I‟m thirsty” can be used to perform the acts of statement and request.”

2.1.1.2 Classification of speech acts

According to Austin, on any occasion, the action performed by producing an utterance consists of three related acts: locutionary act, illocutionary act and perlocutionary act These three acts are ultimately related because in a meaningful utterance, “Speaker (S) says

something to Hearer (H); in saying something to H, S does something; and by doing something, S affects H.” (Harnish, R.M., 2001) Specifically, the three types of acts are defined as follows:

- Locutionary acts are simply the speech acts that have taken place They are the physical acts of producing well-formed and meaningful utterances

- Illocutionary act are the real actions which are performed by the utterance, where saying equals doing, as in betting, plighting one's troth, welcoming and warning In other words, an illocutionary act refers to the force/intention of the Speaker/Writer behind the words An illocutionary act is the making of a statement, promise, threat, etc in uttering a sentence by virtue of the conventional force associated with it People utter to make statement, offer, complaint or for other communicative purposes, which is called illocutionary force

- Perlocutionary acts are the effects of the utterance on the listener, who accepts the bet

or pledge of marriage, is welcomed or warned That is the bringing about of the effects on the audience by means of uttering the sentence It also includes the change to state of mind, knowledge or attitude of the Hearer/Reader

For instance, when making a meaningful utterance “It is so cold in this room” (locutionary act), we might intend to make a complaint or a request (illocutionary act) which may get H(s)

to close the window or increase the temperature in the room (perlocutionary act)

However, one problem triggers from the fact that one locution may embrace different illocutionary forces in different contexts For example, one locutionary act through the utterance “Don‟t you know that this is a non-smoking department?” may represent different illocutionary forces such as:

- A real question: S just wants to question whether or not H notices the fact that they are

Undoubtedly, context proves its crucial role in interpreting such utterances

2.1.1.3 Classification of illocutionary acts

According to Yule, G (1996), among the three types of speech acts, the most discussed one is illocutionary force He emphasizes that “indeed, the term speech act is generally interpreted quite narrowly to mean only the illocutionary force of an utterance” Yule offers a table of speech acts classification:

Speech act type Direction of fit S=Speaker; X=Situation

Declarations Words change the world S causes X

Representatives Make words fit the world S believes X

Expressives Make words fit the world S feels X

Directives Make the world fit words S wants X

Commissives Make the world fit words S intends X

Table 1: Speech acts classification proposed by Yule, G (1996)

Searle, J.R (1990) somehow shares his views in the above classification by Yule and he also adds the concept of illocutionary point which refers to the point of purpose of illocution Searle identifies five illocutionary points which are representatives, directives, commissives, expressives and declarations Details are as follows:

- Representatives (assertives): S asserts a proposition to be true, using such verbs as: affirm, believe, conclude, deny, report, etc Simply speaking, representatives are the kinds of speech acts that tell people how and what things are Eg.: I believe that he will accept our pay rise request

- Directives: S tries to make H do something, with such words as: ask, beg, challenge, command, dare, invite, insist, request Eg.: Could you please turn down the volume a little bit?

- Commissives: S commits himself (or herself) to a (future) course of action, with verbs such as: guarantee, pledge, promise, swear, vow, undertake, warrant Eg.: I promise you a 10% rise

in your salary at the beginning of next year if you implement the three modules of Middle Management Course in Kontum well enough

- Expressives: S expresses an attitude to or about a state of affairs, using such verbs as: apologize, appreciate, congratulate, deplore, detest, regret, thank, welcome Eg.: Much as I wish to increase your salary as an encouragement, I regret to tell you that our budget line for your position does not allow any rise

- Declarations: S alters the external status or condition of an object or situation, solely by making the utterance: I now pronounce you man and wife, I sentence you to be hanged by the neck until you be dead, I name this ship Titanic, etc

Besides this classification which divides speech acts into five types as mentioned above, Yule claims that speech acts can be distinguished into direct and indirect ones by combining three structural forms (declarative, interrogative, imperative) and three general communicative functions (statement, question, command/request) According to him,

- In direct speech acts, S says what he/she means and there exists a direct relationship between a structure and function Eg “Please increase the temperature in this room a little bit.”

- In indirect speech acts, there is an indirect relationship between a structure and function Here S means more than he/she says, which means S performs one illocutionary act implicitly

by the way of performing another illocutionary act explicitly For instance, instead of requesting “Please increase the temperature in this room a little bit” (direct speech act), one could ask “Do you think it is so cold in this room?” (indirect speech act)

In terms of classification, it is worth mentioning Performatives - the speech acts of a special kind where the utterance of the right words by the right person in the right situation effectively

to accomplish a certain social act In some cases, the speech must be accompanied by a ceremonial or ritual action Whether S in fact has the social or legal (or other kind of) standing

to accomplish the act depends on some things beyond the mere speaking of the words These are felicity conditions, which we can also explain by the “hereby” test, Eg.: “I hereby sentence you to three months' probation.”

One simple but crude way to decide whether a speech act is of such a kind that we can aptly call it a performative is to insert the word “hereby” between subject and verb If the resulting utterance makes sense, then the speech act is probably a performative It is crude, because it implies at least one felicity condition - whatever it is to which “hereby” refers In the above example, “hereby” may refer to the speaker's situation - in sitting as chairman of the bench of magistrates

These are conditions necessary to the success of a speech act They take their name from a Latin root - “felix” or “happy” They are conditions needed for success or achievement of a performative Only certain people are qualified to declare war, baptize people or sentence convicted felons In some cases, the speaker must be sincere (as in apologizing or vowing) And external circumstances must be suitable: “Can you give me a lift?” requires that H has a motor vehicle, is able to drive it somewhere and that S has a reason for the request It may be that the utterance is meant as a joke or sarcasm, in which case a different interpretation is in order Loosely speaking, felicity conditions are of three kinds: preparatory conditions, conditions for execution and sincerity conditions

- Preparatory conditions include the status or authority of S to perform the speech act, the situation of other parties and so on

- Conditions for execution can assume an exaggerated importance We are so used to a ritual or ceremonial action accompanying the speech act that we believe the act is invalidated,

if the action is lacking

- Sincerity conditions: at a simple level these show that S must really intend what he or she says In the case of apologizing or promising, it may be impossible for others to know how sincere S is Moreover sincerity, as a genuine intention (now) is no assurance that the apologetic attitude will last, or that the promise will be kept There are some speech acts - such

as plighting one's troth or taking an oath - where this sincerity is determined by the presence of

witnesses The one making the promise will not be able later to argue that he or she didn't really mean it

Summary: So far, the definition and several ways in classifying speech acts proposed by different authors/linguists have been reviewed The next part will deal with details of negotiation – a process of discussion which involves different parties who, during that process, perform numerous types of speech acts in achieving their pre-determined goals

2.1.2 Speech acts in salary negotiation

2.1.2.1 General concepts of negotiation

2.1.2.1.1 Definition of negotiation

In simplest terms, negotiation is a discussion between two or more disputants who are trying

to work out a solution to their problem This interpersonal or inter-group process can occur at

a personal level, as well as at a corporate or international/diplomatic level Negotiations typically take place because the parties wish to create something new that neither could do on his or her own, or to resolve a problem or dispute between them The parties acknowledge that there is some conflict of interest between them and think they can use some form of influence

to get a better deal, rather than simply taking what the other side will voluntarily give them They prefer to search for agreement rather than fight openly, give in, or break off contact (Lax D & Sebenius, J., 2006)

According to Firth, A (1995), when parties negotiate, they usually expect give and take While they have interlocking goals that they cannot accomplish independently, they usually do not want or need exactly the same thing This interdependence can be either win-lose or win-win in nature, and the type of negotiation that is appropriate will vary accordingly The disputants will either attempt to force the other side to comply with their demands, to modify the opposing position and move toward compromise, or to invent a solution that meets the objectives of all sides The nature of their interdependence will have a major impact on the nature of their relationship, the way negotiations are conducted, and the outcomes of these negotiations

As viewed by Lax, D & Sebenius, J (2006), mutual adjustment is one of the key causes of the changes that occur during a negotiation Both parties know that they can influence the other's outcomes and that the other side can influence theirs The effective negotiator attempts to understand how people will adjust and readjust their positions during negotiations, based on what the other party does and is expected to do The parties have to exchange information and make an effort to influence each other As negotiations evolve, each side proposes changes to the other party's position and makes changes to its own This process of give-and-take and

making concessions is necessary if a settlement is to be reached If one party makes several proposals that are rejected, and the other party makes no alternate proposal, the first party may break off negotiations Parties typically will not want to concede too much if they do not sense that those with whom they are negotiating are willing to compromise

Moore, C.W (1996) asserts that negotiation is the principal way that people redefine an old relationship that is not working to their satisfaction or establish a new relationship where none existed before The study of the subject is called negotiation theory Those who work in negotiation professionally are called negotiators Professional negotiators are often specialized, such as union negotiators, leverage buyout negotiators, peace negotiators, hostage negotiators, or may work under other titles, such as diplomats, legislators or brokers

In his study section about negotiation, Moore, C.W mentions that for negotiations to result in positive benefits for all sides, the negotiators must define what the problem(s) is/are and what each party wants In defining the goals of negotiation, according to him, it is important to

distinguish between issues, positions, interests and settlement options

• An issue is a matter or question parties disagree about Issues can usually be stated as

problems For example, "How can benefit sharings be fairly divided between related stakeholders in community forests harvesting in Tul village?" Issues may be substantive (related to money, time or compensation), procedural (concerning the way a dispute is handled), or psychological (related to the effect of a proposed action)

• Positions are statements by a party about how an issue can or should be handled or

resolved; or a proposal for a particular solution A disputant selects a position because it satisfies a particular interest or meets a set of needs

• Interests are specific needs, conditions or gains that a party must have met in an

agreement for it to be considered satisfactory Interests may refer to content, to specific procedural considerations or to psychological needs

• Settlement Options are possible solutions which address one or more party's interests

The presence of options implies that there is more than one way to satisfy interests

It can also be said that negotiation involves three basic elements: process, behavior and substance The process refers to how the parties negotiate: the context of the negotiations, the

parties to the negotiations, the tactics used by the parties, and the sequence and stages in which all of these play out Behavior refers to the relationships among these parties, the communication between them and the styles they adopt The substance refers to what the parties negotiate over: the agenda, the issues (positions and - more helpfully - interests), the options, and the agreement(s) reached at the end

2.1.2.1.2 Approaches of negotiation

The negotiator will need to select a general negotiation approach There are many techniques, but the two most common approaches to negotiation are Positional Bargaining and Interest-based Bargaining The classification and specific details of both approaches are mainly introduced by Fisher, R., Ury, W., Patton, B (1991) in the book “Getting to yes: Negotiating

agreement without giving in”:

2.1.2.1.2 1 Positional Bargaining

Positional Bargaining is a negotiation strategy in which a series of positions, alternative solutions that meet particular interests or needs, are selected by a negotiator, ordered sequentially according to preferred outcomes and presented to another party in an effort to reach agreement The first or opening position represents that maximum gain hoped for or expected in the negotiations Each subsequent position demands less of an opponent and results in fewer benefits for the person advocating it Agreement is reached when the negotiators' positions converge and they reach an acceptable settlement range

People are said to use Positional Bargaining when: The resource being negotiated is limited (time, money, psychological benefits, etc.); A party wants to maximize his/her share in a fixed sum pay off; The interests of the parties are not interdependent, are contradictory or are mutually exclusive; Current or future relationships have a lower priority than immediate substantive gains What follows is the main step of Positional Bargaining:

1 Set your target point solution that would meet all your interests and result in complete success for you

2 Make target point into opening position

3 Set your bottom line or resistance point - the solution that is the least you are willing to accept and still reach agreement

4 Consider possible targets and bottom lines of other negotiators

5 Consider a range of positions between your target point and bottom line which are:

6 Decide if any of your positions meets the interests or needs of the other negotiators

7 Decide when you will move from one position to another

8 Order the issues to be negotiated into a logical and beneficial sequence

9 Open with an easy issue

10 Open with a position close to your target point

11 Allow other side to explain their opening position

12 If appropriate, move to other positions that offer other negotiator(s) more benefits

13 Look for a settlement or bargaining range spectrum of possible settlement alternatives any one of which is preferable to impasse or no settlement

14 Compromise on benefits and losses where appropriate

15 Look for how positions can be modified to meet all negotiators' interests

16 Formalize agreements in writing

2.1.2.1.2 2 Interest-Based Bargaining

Interest-based bargaining involves parties in a collaborative effort to jointly meet each other's needs and satisfy mutual interests Rather than moving from positions to counter positions to a compromise settlement, negotiators pursuing an interest-based bargaining approach attempt to identify their interests or needs and those of other parties prior to developing specific solutions Interests are needs that a negotiator wants satisfied or met There are three types of interests: - Substantive interests content needs (money, time, goods or resources, etc.); - Procedural interests needs for specific types of behavior or the "way that something is done.";

- Relationship or psychological interests needs that refer to how one feels, how one is treated

or conditions for ongoing relationship After the interests are identified, the negotiators jointly search for a variety of settlement options that might satisfy all interests, rather than argue for any single position The parties select a solution from these jointly generated options This approach to negotiation is frequently called integrated bargaining because of its emphasis on cooperation, meeting mutual needs, and the efforts by the parties to expand the bargaining options so that a wiser decision, with more benefits to all, can be achieved People often use Interest-Based Bargaining when: The interests of the negotiators are interdependent.; It is not clear whether the issue being negotiated is fixed-sum; Future relationships are a high priority; When negotiators want to establish cooperative problem-solving rather than competitive procedures to resolve their differences; Negotiators want to tailor a solution to specific needs

or interests; A compromise of principles is unacceptable Following is the generalized procedure for Interest-Based Bargaining:

1 Clearly identify the substantive, procedural and relationship interest/needs that you expect

to be satisfied as a result of negotiations

2 Speculate on the substantive, procedural and relationship interests that might be important

to the other negotiators

3 Begin negotiations by educating each other about your respective interests, make sure all interests are understood

4 Frame the problem in a way that it is solvable by a win/win solution

5 Identify general criteria that must be present in an acceptable settlement

6 Generate multiple options for settlement; make sure that more than two options are on the table at any given time

7 Utilize integrative option generating techniques

8 Separate the option generation process from the evaluation process

9 Work towards agreement: -Start with a problem solving rather than competitive approach; Provide benefits above and beyond the call of duty; Listen and convey to other negotiators that they have been heard and understood; Listen and restate content to demonstrate understanding; Listen and restate feelings to demonstrate acceptance (not necessarily agreement) and understanding of intensity

10 Identify areas of agreement, restate them, and write them down

Nowadays, an Integrated Approach is often mentioned as the combination of the benefits of the two approaches mentioned above and at the same time minimization of the costs caused by them Naturally, all negotiations involve some Positional Bargaining and some Interest-based Bargaining, but each session may be characterized by a predominance of one approach or the other Negotiators who take a Positional Bargaining approach will generally use Interest-based Bargaining only during the final stages of negotiations When Interest-based Bargaining is used throughout negotiations it often produces wiser decisions in a shorter amount of time with less incidence of adversarial behavior

Negotiation theorists make several overlapping distinctions about approaches to negotiation Besides the distinction proposed above, Morton Deutsch (2006) also makes the distinction between Competitive and Cooperative Approaches According to Deutsch, the most important factors that determine whether an individual will approach a conflict cooperatively or competitively are the nature of the dispute and the goals each side seeks to achieve Often the

two sides' goals are linked together, or interdependent The parties' interaction will be shaped

by whether this interdependence is positive or negative According to Deutsch:

- Goals with positive interdependence are tied together in such a way that the chance of one side attaining its goal is increased by the other side' attaining its goal Positively interdependent goals normally result in Cooperative Approaches to negotiation, because any participant can "attain his goal if, and only if, the others with whom he is linked can attain their goals."

- On the other hand, negative interdependence means the chance of one side attaining its goal

is decreased by the others‟ success Negatively interdependent goals force competitive situations, because the only way for one side to achieve its goals and "win" is for the other side

to "lose."

Although Fisher, Ury, and Patton (1991) argue that almost any dispute can be resolved with Interest-based Bargaining (i.e., a Cooperative Approach), other theorists believe the two approaches should be used together Lax and Sebenius (2006), for instance, argue that negotiations typically involve "creating" and "claiming" value First, the negotiators work cooperatively to create value (that is, "enlarge the pie,") but then they must use competitive processes to claim value (that is, "divide up the pie")

However, a tension exists between creating and claiming value This is because the competitive strategies used to claim value tend to undermine cooperation, while a Cooperative Approach makes one vulnerable to competitive bargaining tactics The tension that exists between cooperation and competition in negotiation is known as "The Negotiator's Dilemma”:

- If both sides cooperate, they will both have good outcomes

- If one cooperates and the other competes, the cooperator will get a terrible outcome and the competitor will get a great outcome

- If both compete, they will both have mediocre outcomes

- In the face of uncertainty about what strategy the other side will adopt, each side's best choice is to compete

- However, if they both compete, both sides end up worse off

In real life, parties can communicate and commit themselves to a Cooperative Approach They can also adopt norms of fair and cooperative behavior and focus on their future relationship This fosters a Cooperative Approach between both parties and helps them to find joint gains

2.1.2.2 Salary negotiation and speech acts in salary negotiation

By nature, a SN bears almost all the characteristics of a negotiation in general but it also has some typical features that other types of negotiation do not have It is a discussion on salary topic basically between the Employer and the Employee who are trying to reach an agreement

on the Employee‟s salary SN is considered a sensitive but indispensable topic upon job offer and during working time at any organization According to Barron, L A (2003), SN is something at which hiring managers are usually a lot more proficient than the people they hire The major issue or the topic in SN is salary, or payment/remuneration package that the Employer has to pay the Employee for performing the job A SN mostly takes place between two parties namely the Employer and the Employee In reality, there are some typical situations in which SN takes place, they are:

2.1.2.2.1 After receiving a new job offer

It is said that the best time to negotiate salary is after receiving a job offer, and before the Employee accepts it - at the point when the Employer clearly wants the Employee for the job, and is keen to have the Employee‟s acceptance of the job offer Obviously, the Employee‟s bargaining power in real terms, and psychologically, is strongest at this point, and is stronger still if he/she has (or can say that he/she has) at least one other job offer or option The chances

of renegotiating salary after accepting, and certainly starting, the job are remote because once the Employee accepts the offer, he/she has effectively made the contract, including salary, and thereafter he/she is subject to the organization's policies, process and inertia (Druckman, D., 1977)

2.1.2.2.2 Annual salary review

In almost all international organizations or foreign aided projects, an annual personal talk is conducted between the Employer and the Employee after each year working In that talk, job performance will be mainly discussed and salary review is an integral part that is also mentioned Due to a number of factors, both subjective and objective, the Employee‟s salary may stay the same or increase In this case, even without any proposal, salary topic is to be mentioned regardless of the Employer‟s or Employee‟s personal interest

2.1.2.2.3 Salary rise proposed by the Employer

This case theoretically takes place when the Employer feels satisfied with the Employee‟s superb performance or when the Employee takes over some more responsibilities However, this is said to be in rare cases in fact since there are not so many Employers who actively increase their Employees‟ salaries without the Employees‟ demand or request

2.1.2.2.4 Salary rise requested by the Employee

As a fact of life, this situation is more frequently found than the previous case It takes place either when the Employee is given more responsibilities without receiving any pay rise or he/she feels that he/she is currently being under paid in comparison with the timely labor market norm

As mentioned above, a SN is a discussion on salary topic basically between the Employer and the Employee who are trying to reach an agreement on the Employee‟s salary During such discussion, both parties have to perform a number of speech acts in order to pursue their own goals For instance, in requesting a pay rise, the Employee may have to state his/her current situation (representative), request to receive a pay rise (directive), promise to perform the job better (commissive) and express his/her gratitude or regret if or if not receiving the rise to his/her expectation The Employer, likewise, also performs different speech acts to achieve his/her goals Like in other types of negotiation, negotiators when attending a SN often have to select an appropriate negotiation approach or an appropriately mixed approach in order to obtain the most possible results in negotiation Due to the features of Positional Bargaining

presented in the previous part, this approach is considered generally suitable and commonly applicable in SN because of the following reasons:

- The resource being negotiated is limited, i.e money/substantive benefits;

- A party wants to maximize his/her share in a fixed sum pay off;

- The interests of the parties are not interdependent or may be said to be contradictory or mutually exclusive;

- Current or future relationships have lower priority than immediate substantive gains Undoubtedly, negotiators in reality may choose to totally follow this approach or just part of it with the other part the mixture of other approaches so as to be relevant to his/her own situation In the survey questionnaire of this study, the questions are developed mainly based

on the steps of Positional Bargaining with the integration of certain relevant Interest-based Bargaining details in typical SN situations

2.1.3 Politeness theory

2.1.3.1 The concept of face

“Face”, which was first used in English since 1876 in the sense of “reputation” or “good name”, refers to the “public self-image that every member of a society wants to claim for himself” (Brown, P & Levinson, S., 1987) Yule, G (1996) also defines face as the “public self – image of a person” and the “emotional and social sense of that everyone has and expects everyone else to recognize”

In 1963, Erving Goffman published the article "On Face Work" in which he discusses face in reference to how people present themselves in social situations and that our entire reality is constructed through our social interactions

Goffman adds that “face is a mask that changes depending on the audience and the social interaction Face is maintained by the audience, not by the Speaker (S) We strive to maintain

the face we have created in social situations Face is broken down by Goffman into two different categories Positive face is the desire of being seen as a good human being and negative face is the desire to remain autonomous To share Goffman‟s idea on this issue, Yule (1996) clarifies that a person‟s positive face is represented by the need to be accepted, even liked, by others, to be treated as a member of the same group, and to know that his or her wants are shared by others Meanwhile, a person‟s negative face is realized through his/her need to be independent, to have freedom of action, and not to be imposed on by others

In communication, according to Brown and Levinson, certain illocutionary acts are likely to damage or threaten another person‟s face, which are termed face threatening acts (FTAs) Brown and Levinson argue that an FTA often requires a mitigating statement or some sort of politeness, or the line of communication will break (Brown & Levinson, 1987) In Goffman‟s ideas, there is a limited amount of strategies to maintain face With this understanding of face,

a definition of politeness can be understood in relation to face

2.1.3.2 Definition of politeness

Being regarded as a complex and intricate topic, politeness, which has received considerable attention and interest from a large number of scholars and researchers, basically refers to the

most appropriate pragmatic strategies used in given contexts According to Blum-Kulka (1987), politeness is linguistically defined as “the international balance achieved between two needs; the need for pragmatic clarity and the need to avoid coerciveness” Mills (2003) defines politeness as “the expression of S‟ intention to mitigate face threats carried by certain face threatening acts toward another” Being polite therefore consists of attempting to save face for another Prior to Mills, many other scholars offer different definitions of politeness Lakoff views politeness as “a system of interpersonal relations designed to facilitate interaction by minimizing the potential for conflict and confrontation inherence in all human interchange.”

To simply put it, Yule (1996) considers politeness as “the means employed to show awareness

of other person‟s face” For instance, you can talk to the colleague you know quite well and work with for quite a long time “Hey, you know when Jurgen drops in?” However, to your boss you had better say “Mr Ogle, could you please tell me what time Mr Hess visits our office?” Obviously, in each example above, you use different ways to appropriately show the respect to the people‟s faces It will turn out ridiculous or inappropriate if you reverse the sentences used in the situations

Probably, the most important tenet of Brown and Levinson‟s original text on politeness theory which first appeared in 1978 is that we change our language based on the Hearer (H) and thus our strategies for compliance gaining change depending on the audience In everyday life, we design messages that protect face and achieve other goals as well This theory, like the theory

by other scholars namely Lakoff and Leech, basically builds on the Grice‟s model of the Cooperative Principle which will be discussed in the next part of this Chapter

2.1.3.3 Social factors and politeness

According to Brown and Levinson (1987), there are three factors which affect politeness of an utterance, which they also call the three different socio-cultural variables of the FTA:

- the power that the addressee has over S (P);

- the social distance between the interactants (D) and

- the degree to which, according to some ranking of impositions in the culture

concerned, the action required of the addressee or the evaluation of the addressee is rated as an imposition (R)

Specifically, Brown and Levinson add that P, which refers to the relationship between two interlocutors, is “the degree to which H can impose his own plans and his own self evaluation (face) at the expense of S‟s plans and self-evaluation.” Typically, three common types of power relationships are: equal power (S and H have the equal power to each other), higher power (S has more power over H) and lower power (S has less power over H) In normal communication, if you are talking with someone of higher power than you, you often tend to use more former and indirect language

D refers to the relationship between the interlocutors, which is said to be at low degree when the interlocutors have close relationship, and to be high degree if the interlocutors are strangers In typical English, more formal language is often used when higher degree of D exists With reference to somehow the same factor that is “social distance”, different scholars may propose different labels such as “solidarity” (Brown and Gilman, 1972), “distance” (Brown and Levinson, 1987), “intimacy” (Troborg, 1987), etc Accordingly, the labels for scale extremities also vary such as high-low (for social distance), high/great – low/small (for distance), etc Here-in-after, the high-low scale will be utilized in discussion of D

R, as Brown and Levinson define it, is a “culturally and situationally defined ranking of imposition by the degree to which they are considered to interfere with an agent‟s wants by self-determination or of approval of his negative and positive face wants” In brief, R refers to the importance or degree of difficulty in the situation For instance, when you request for something big, important and difficult, R here is obviously large In contrast, when you only wish to be given some small or less important favour, the R in this situation is small In English, more formal and complex language is often required when large R exists

The three above-mentioned factors P, D and R are said to determine the choice of appropriate strategies to be used and the combination of these factors is computed as the seriousness or weightiness of the FTA However, it is also worth noticing that the degree to which the FTA is

considered a serious imposition (large R) depends on the P and D (Watts, Ide and Ehlich, 1992) For example, asking someone of higher social hierarchy or someone who is a stranger

to help you find the way constitutes a more serious FTA than asking your close friends or colleagues Therefore, it is suggested to know the value for D and P before assessing the value

of R Much criticism from different scholars is raised on the question: whether or not high values in P, D or parameters contribute to the weightiness of the FTA even though the value of the weightiness of the FTA could be computed (Watts) Despite that criticism, the fact that those parameters significantly affect the choice of strategies to be employed in communication

is widely accepted by the scholars and researchers in this field

2.1.3.4 Major pragmatics principles

2.1.3.4.1 Grice’s Cooperative Principle

Grice‟s most significant contribution to the study of utterance meaning, according to Watts, was made during the series of Williams James‟s lectures delivered at Harvard University in

1969, one of which, “Logic and conversation”, embedded his original dual level of meaning interpretation into what he called “Cooperative Principle” (CP) for conversation (1975, cited

in Watts) It is worth mentioning the two levels of meaning involved in any verbal utterance which, as Grice summarizes, are “conventional denotative” meanings represented by the semantics of the language in which the utterance is made (truth-conditional or propositional meanings), and the intentions of S in making the utterance (illocutionary acts, illocutionary force)

The CP contains the advice to “make your conversational contribution such as required, at the stage at which it occurs, by the accepted purpose or direction of the talk exchange in which you are engaged” (Grice, 1975) Those are the maxims to which, Grice maintains, interactants

in a conversation should, but frequently do not, adhere Violation of any or all the maxims would lead the addressee to what Grice calls “implicatures” or “inferences” so as to ascertain the addresser‟s intended meaning and thereby reinstate the CP The maxims are summarized

as follows:

 The maxim of Quantity: interactants should keep their conversational contribution as informative as required for the purposes of the conversational exchange, but not more informative;

 The maxim of Quality: interactants should say only what they believe to be true or that for which they have adequate evidence;

 The maxim of Relation: interactants should make their contributions relevant to the purposes of the overall conversation;

 The maxim of Manner: interactants should avoid obscurity of expression and ambiguity, should not engage in unnecessary verbosity (be brief) and should present their contributions in an orderly manner

In addition to those four maxims, as Grice admits, there should be one more maxim which is probably the maxim of Politeness The formulation of this missing maxim is mentioned in the next part by other linguists notably Robin Lakoff and Geoffrey Leech

2.1.3.4.2 Lakoff’s Conversational – Maxim Approach

Robin Lakoff suggests setting up pragmatics rules to complement syntactic and semantic rules

Be orderly

Diagram 1: Pragmatics rules suggested by Lakoff R

and adding the politeness rules to Grice‟s CP, which she re-defines as the rules of conversation Her idea is illustrated in the figure below (cited in Watts, 2003): Alongside with Grice‟s CP which she renames as “rules of conversation”, Lakoff suggests the rules of politeness which consists of three sub-rules as illustrated above It is quite obvious to infer from the figure that if S follows the rules of politeness by not imposing, giving options and making the addressee feel good, he/she will be certain at some stage or another in the interaction to violate the rules of the conversation This is considered one of the great weaknesses of the models constructed along Gricean lines In the following section, a further attempt to elaborate a model of pragmatics along Gricean lines in which politeness plays a leading role, i.e Leech‟s model of general pragmatics will be reviewed

2.1.3.4.3 Leech’s Politeness Principle (PP)

The central concept in Leech‟s proposed model is that of a cost-benefit scale of politeness related to both S and H According to Leech, politeness involves minimizing the cost and maximizing the benefit to S/H The PP consists of six maxims, all of which are related to the notion of cost and benefit, and related pairs of values What follows is the very brief summary

of the maxims:

 The Tact Maxim: Minimize cost to other, (Maximize benefit to other) – only applicable in illocutionary functions in “impositives” and “commissives” as Leech classifies

 The Generosity Maxim: Minimize benefit to self, (Maximize cost to self) – only applicable

in “impositives” and “commissives”

 The Approbation Maxim: Minimize dispraise of other, (Maximize praise of other) – only applicable in “expressives” and “assertives”

 The Modesty Maxim: Minimize praise of self, (Maximize praise of other) – only applicable in “expressives” and “assertives”

 The Agreement Maxim: Minimize disagreement between self and other, (Maximize agreement between self and other) – only applicable in assertives

 The Sympathy Maxim: Minimize antipathy between self and other, (Maximize sympathy between self and other) - only applicable in assertives

As in the case of Lakoff‟s proposed approach, a number of questions arise concerning the parameters in Leech‟s maxims such as: Are the parameters “cost”, “benefit”, sympathy”, etc universally valid or valid from one individual to the next or from one interaction to the next? How is it possible for the Speaker to take all these maxims as well as the CP rules and other principles into consideration when producing an utterance? Since Leech maintains that his theory is not one of politeness production, the deficiency is only partially remedied in Brown and Levinson‟s approach

2.1.3.4.4 Brown and Levinson’s theory of politeness

Probably the most thorough treatment of the concept of politeness is that of Penelope Brown and Stephen Levinson, which was first published in 1978 and then reissued, with quite a long introduction, in 1987 In their model, politeness is defined as redressive action taken to counter-balance the disruptive effect of face-threatening acts (FTAs)

In their theory, communication is seen as potentially dangerous and antagonistic The strength

of their approach over that of Geoff Leech is that they explain politeness by deriving it from more fundamental notions of what it is to be a human being: the basic notion of their model is

“face” They begin with the idea of „model persons‟ - rational agents who think strategically and are conscious of their language choices, who have the “ability to rationalize from communicative goals to the optimal means of achieving those goals” (Watts, R.J., 2003) This influences Brown and Levinson when examining Goffman‟s version of face, where they agree that rational agents have both positive and negative face Simply put, they believe that model persons want to maintain others‟ face, but nevertheless are often forced to commit FTAs Thus, PSs are developed in order to formulate messages in order to save H‟s face when FTAs are inevitable or desired This means that S avoids embarrassing the listener or making him feel uncomfortable PSs will therefore be those which aim at:

- supporting or enhancing the addressee‟s positive face (positive politeness)

- avoiding transgression of the addressee‟s freedom of action and freedom from imposition (negative politeness)

When contributing to the interaction, the model person has to relevantly assess the threatening nature of the move he/she is going to make and then decide either avoid it entirely

face-or at least soften/minimize it by choosing an appropriate linguistics strategy (strategies) Brown and Levinson propose a diagram of five strategies to minimize risk of losing face numbered 1 to 5 from greater to lesser estimated risk of face-loss to addressee The possibilities range from the best case (Str 5: Don‟t do the FTA) to the worst (Str 1: Do the FTA and go on record as doing so baldly without redressive action) As the interactant goes on record as doing the FTA, he/she can minimize the face threat by performing two types of redressive actions: - enhancing the addressee‟s positive face (Str 2) or – softening the encroachment on the address‟s freedom of action or freedom from imposition (Str 3) Str 4 is open to interactant to go off record or flout one of Gricean maxims on the assumption that the addressee is in the position to infer the intended meaning

With redressive action

2 Positive politeness

3 Negative politeness

On record Estimated risk of face-loss to addressee

Diagram 2: Diagram of five strategies proposed by Brown & Levinson

propose

2.1.3.5 Politeness strategies

Brown and Levinson outline four main types of PSs: bald on record, negative politeness, positive politeness, and off-record or indirect strategy

2.1.3.5.1 Bald on record strategy

Bald on record strategy does not attempt to minimize the threat to H‟s face This strategy is most often utilized by the speakers who closely know their audience With the bald on record strategy, there is a direct possibility that the audience will be shocked or embarrassed by the utterance For example, you may use a bald on record strategy to tell your close friend:

“Remember to take off your shoes before entering my house.”

2.1.3.5.2 Positive politeness strategy

This strategy attempts to minimize the threat to H's positive face which is most commonly used in situations where the audience knows each other fairly well According to Brown and Levinson (1978), positive politeness is redress directed to the addressee‟s positive face, his perennial desire that he wants (or the actions / acquisitions / values resulting from them) should be thought of as desirable When using positive politeness strategy, S tends to show his/her concern to the other or let the other know they have common ground This strategy consists of fifteen sub-strategies listed below:

Str

1

Notice, attend to H (his/her

interests, wants, needs,

goods, etc.)

 * Johnny, I know you are quite generous Could you lend

me some dollars?

* You must be hungry Why don‟t you come help me

with the cooking?

Str

2

Exaggerate (interest,

approval, sympathy with

H): done with exaggerated

intensifying modifiers such

as absolutely, fantastic,

marvelous, completely, etc

the contracts are ready for approval! Excellent!

Str

3

Intensify interest to H in

S‟s contribution: done by

using vivid tenses &

combination of past &

present tenses, direct

speech rather than indirect

speech, tag questions &

expressions that call for

H‟s attention

* Yesterday just when I entered X-Mac restaurant, I accidentally saw Alan kissing one lady who I am sure you’ll be surprised to know whom Guess what, it‟s

Cheryl, his ex-girlfriend with whom he said he broke up years ago

Str

4

Use in-group identity

markers in speech such as

solidarity semantic address

language/dialect,

jargon/slang, contradiction

& ellipsis

* Come on buddy; come help me with this assignment I

cannot just finish it my own

* Honey, how about going out for dinner tonight? I am

fed up with cooking at home all the week

Str

5

Seek agreement by safe

topics, repetition &

minimal encouragers

(yeah, sure, that‟s true,

absolutely, etc.)

* The weather is very nice today, isn’t it? By the way,

why don‟t we postpone the staff meeting until tomorrow?

Str

6

Avoid disagreement by

using token agreement,

pseudo agreement, white

lies & hedging opinions

* Well, in that case I think you are right to some extend

However, why don‟t we look at the issue in another way like …?

* So, ok … we‟ll come back to that issue soon, let‟s

move to …

* I would really love to come to the party with you;

however, …

* I think she is the key person in monitoring but she

seems to be kind of not really interested in that anymore

Str

7

Presuppose, raise, assert

common ground by

gossip/small talk,

point-of-view operations, switches

(personal, time, place)

* Both you and I, we are in the same boat and we both can find it hard to accept the salary which stays the same for years for even more responsibilities Why don‟t we

…?

* It‟s quite a tough work for me, you know So I think

…?

* At around 9pm last night and when we were watching

“Valley of lilies”, my father …

Str

8

Joke to put H at ease * No problem if I help you finish this cake right now?

* I am stealing some blank paper from your desk, ok?

to come to “P/S: I love you” which is also as romantic

* I‟m fully aware that you do not like to change the server hosting placement but …

Str

10

Offer, promise * Don‟t take it so personally I‟m sure he does not mean

to blame you I’ll come and talk with him about it

* Take it easy, I’ll send the questionnaires to my friends

to help you

Str

11

Be optimistic that H wants

what S wants, i.e the FTA

is slight

* I am using your computer just for a while, ok?

* I am sure you don’t bother if I come some minutes late

tomorrow morning I have to go to the hospital for the health check

* You’ll make the animation for my ppt presentation,

* Shall we start right now?

* Let’s take some break before we come to the next issue

Str

13

Give or ask for reasons * I think you are a little bit tired today already So why

not take the tennis lesson tomorrow when you feel strong enough?

* Why don’t you drop in and join us for dinner tonight?

Str

14

Assert reciprocal exchange

or tit for tat

* I’ll only help you with the CD burning if you agree to

double check my article on timber drying first

* I‟ve done the washing You’ll hang the clothes, ok?

Note: Strategy is in italic text; FTA is normal

Table 2: Positive politeness strategies – names & examples

2.1.3.5.3 Negative politeness strategy

Negative politeness strategy presumes that S will be imposing on H, thus it is used to free H from imposition and show deference which is involved in what is called “formal politeness” (Yule, G.) The potential for awkwardness or embarrassment is greater than in bald on record strategies and positive PSs Brown and Levinson claim that negative politeness is the redressive action addressed to the addressee‟s negative face, adding that negative politeness is specific and focused which performs the function of minimizing the particular imposition that