A study on english politeness strategies for gift offers with reference to the vietnamese equivalents

THESIS A STUDY ON ENGLISH POLITENESS STRATEGIES FOR GIFT OFFERS WITH REFERENCE TO THE VIETNAMESE EQUIVALENTS NGHIÊN CỨU VỀ CHIẾN LƯỢC LỊCH SỰ BẰNG TIẾNG ANH KHI ĐƯA RA LỜI MỜI TẶNG QU

MINISTRY OF EDUCATION AND TRAINING

HANOI OPEN UNIVERSITY

M.A THESIS

A STUDY ON ENGLISH POLITENESS STRATEGIES FOR GIFT OFFERS WITH REFERENCE TO THE

VIETNAMESE EQUIVALENTS

(NGHIÊN CỨU VỀ CHIẾN LƯỢC LỊCH SỰ BẰNG TIẾNG ANH KHI ĐƯA

RA LỜI MỜI TẶNG QUÀ VỚI CÁC LIỆN HỆ TƯƠNG ĐƯƠNG TRONG

TIẾNG VIỆT)

Hanoi, 2016

MINISTRY OF EDUCATION AND TRAINING

HANOI OPEN UNIVERSITY

M.A THESIS

A STUDY ON ENGLISH POLITENESS STRATEGIES FOR GIFT OFFERS WITH REFERENCE TO THE

VIETNAMESE EQUIVALENTS

(NGHIÊN CỨU VỀ CHIẾN LƯỢC LỊCH SỰ BẰNG TIẾNG ANH KHI ĐƯA

RA LỜI MỜI TẶNG QUÀ VỚI CÁC LIỆN HỆ TƯƠNG ĐƯƠNG TRONG

TIẾNG VIỆT)

TRAN THI THU HUONG

Field: English Language Code: 60220201

Supervisor: Assoc.Prof.Vo Dai Quang, Ph.D

Hanoi, 2016

CERTIFICATE OF ORIGINALITY

I, the undersigned, hereby certify my authority of the study project report

entitled A STUDY ON ENGLISH POLITENESS STRATEGIES FOR GIFT OFFERS WITH REFERENCE TO THE VIETNAMESE EQUIVALENTS

submitted in partial fulfillment of the requirements for the degree of Master in English Language Except where the reference is indicated, no other person’s

work has been used without due acknowledgement in the text of the thesis

Hanoi, 2016

Tran Thi Thu Huong

Approved by SUPERVISOR

(Signature and full name)

Date:………

an academic researcher

A special word of thanks goes to all my lecturers and students in Hanoi Technology and Business University and English teachers in Edu Future Centre and Language Link Centre and their friends, without whose support and encouragement it would never have been possible for me to have this thesis accomplished

Last but not least, I am greatly indebted to my family, my friends for the sacrifice they have devoted to the fulfillment of this academic work

ASTRACTS

The present thesis has been carried out on the background of the achievement and deficiencies in the existing studies on English politeness strategies for gift offers with reference to the Vietnamese equivalents The study aims at investigating the similarities and differences in using politeness strategies for gift offers between English and Vietnamese

Besides, their survey responses are carefully analyzed to build a frame, a common set of strategies in the field

The conclusion is drawn from data analysis and findings are presented and compared in a brief and concise way Some common giving gift offers patterns in both Vietnamese and English cultures from the data are also presented and illustrated with the hope of partially helping avoid misunderstanding in communication

Moreover, investigating the politeness strategies of gift offers and finding out the similarities and differences in two languages can help the Vietnamese learners overcome the difficulties which caused the barrier between two cultures when they are communicating It also helps to enhance and improve language communicative competence of Vietnamese learners of English

LIST OF FIGURES AND TABLES

Figure 1: Possible strategies for doing FTAs

Figure 2: Strategies to minimize risk of losing face

Table 1: The informants’ status parameters

Table 2: Offering gift strategies

Table 3: Strategies used to offer a gift

Table 4: Ranking of occurrence of gift offer strategies in order of rate

TABLE OF CONTENTS

Certificate of originality i

Acknowledgements ii

Abstract iii

List of abbreviations iv

List of tables and figures v

CHAPTER 1: INTRODUCTION 1

1 RATIONALE OF THE STUDY 1

2 AIMS OF THE STUDY 2

3 OBJECTIVES OF THE STUDY 2

4 SCOPE OF THE STUDY 2

5 SIGNIFICANCE OF THE STUDY 2

6 STRUCTURE OF THE STUDY: 3

CHAPTER 2: LITERATURE REVIEW AND THEORETICAL BACKGROUND 4

2.1 Review of the previous studies related to the theme of the thesis 4

2.2 Review of theoretical preliminaries employable for the research 4

2.2.1 Language and communication 4

2.2.2 Communicative competence 5

2.2.3 John Rogers Searle’s definition of speech acts 7

2.2.4 Speech act theory 8

2.2.5 Classification of speech acts 10

2.2.6 Brown and Levinson’s theory of politeness 11

2.2.7 The notion of face 13

2.2.8 Politeness principles 16

2.2.9 Classification of politeness strategies 18

2.2.9.1 Bald On-record 18

2.2.9.2 Positive politeness 19

2.2.9.3 Negative politeness strategies 22

2.2.9.4 Off- record (indirect) 26

2.2.9.5 Social factors affecting politeness strategies 26

2.2.10 Offering as a speech act 27

2.2.11 Gift offers 29

2.3 Summary 30

CHAPTER 3: METHODOLOGY 31

3.1 Research-governing orientations 31

3.1.1 Research questions 31

3.1.2 Research settings 31

3.1.3 Research approach Error! Bookmark not defined 3.1.4 Principles/criteria for data collection and data analysis 33

3.2 Research methods 33

3.2.1 Major methods vs supporting methods 33

3.2.2 Data collection techniques 34

3.2.3 Data analysis techniques 36

3.3 Summary 36

CHAPTER 4: FINDINGS AND DISCUSSION 38

4.1 Communicative strategies used in offering 38

4.1.1 Direct offer 38

4.1.2 Showing concern for the Receiver 39

4.1.3 Giving the Receiver a surprise 40

4.1.4 Showing modesty of the gift value 41

4.1.5 Stating reason/purpose of gift offers 42

4.1.6 Wishes 44

4.1.7 Expressing the Giver’s feeling 45

4.1.8 Asking for permission to give a gift 46

4.2 Gift offering strategies as seen from communicating partners’ parameters 47

4.2.1 Someone you dislike 47

4.2.2 Close friend 49

4.2.3 Brother/sister 50

4.2.4 Employee 51

4.2.5 Employer 52

4.3 Similarities and differences in the politeness strategies for gift offers……….……… 53

4.4.Summary 538

CHAPTER V: CONCLUSION 599

5.1 Recapitulation 599

5.2 Concluding remarks……… 59

5.2 Implications for using gift offers 60

5.3 Limitations and suggestions for further study 60

REFERENCES 60

APPENDIXES 1: SURVEY QUESTIONAIRE 63

APPENDIXES 2: BẢN ĐIỀU TRA 66

APPENDIX 3: OBSERVATION SHEET OBSERVATION SHEET 69

CHAPTER 1: INTRODUCTION

1 RATIONALE OF THE STUDY

With the great speed of developing and expanding, English has emerged as the most powerful international language all over the world Starting from its use gradually turning into colossal, plus the characteristics of convenience, English on those days can be said to be the “golden key to every door” Language plays an important role in our life Language is not only for communication but also for cultural exchange among nations As you can see, language is a multifunctional tool that helps you satisfy a variety of needs Of which, conversation, therefore, is the most fundamental form of communication

in daily interaction because it provides you with the means of conducting human affairs

There are many ways to give gift offers in Vietnamese and English But to

“giving gift offers” in an effective way is by no means easy People often have difficulties in giving gift offers in another language and sometimes make mistake and lead to misunderstanding between communicating partners It is exactly the case to many students of English in Vietnam, especially students from the thesis author’s training institution And although gift offers are a common feature of our everyday lives, it is surprising the little attention that has been paid to this topic This leads the author to the decision to conduct a research

into “A STUDY ON ENGLISH POLITENESS STRATEGIES FOR GIFT

EQUIVALENTS” to find out the similarities and differences in English

politeness strategies for gift offers with reference to Vietnamese equivalents It

is hoped that the thesis may contribute some help to learners to avoid mistakes and failures in gift offers as well as communication

2 AIMS OF THE STUDY

The thesis is conducted to aim at:

• Investigating the English politeness strategies commonly employed for gift offers with reference to the Vietnamese equivalents

• Helping teachers apply successfully the results of the research in teaching EFL learners the politeness strategies of gift offering in English and

Vietnamese

3 OBJECTIVES OF THE STUDY

To achieve the mentioned-above aims, the following objectives are put forward:

• Finding out the similarities and differences between the English politeness strategies for gift offers and those in Vietnamese

• Providing some possible implications for teaching the English politeness strategies for gift offers to Vietnamese learners of English as a foreign language

4 SCOPE OF THE STUDY

The thesis mainly concentrates on the verbal expressions in offering gifts from politeness strategies perspective In fact, what to say to give a gift offer depends very much on the parameter of the communication partners, the relationship between the Giver (G) and the Receiver (R), the context and the reason of offering gifts Paralinguistic and extra linguistic are parts of speech act However, because of the limitation of the thesis, they are beyond the scope

of the study The study is only confined to one aspect of language in action: what politeness strategies are most commonly found in association with gift offering Moreover, gift offering in the study is simply understood as a nice behavior in daily life to express the gratitude, concern and attention to the Receiver

5 SIGNIFICANCE OF THE STUDY

The significance of the thesis can be discussed from two major perspectives:

• The information in the thesis may help learners gain an insight into gift offers from the perspective of the English politeness strategies

• The thesis, to some extent, can give some guidelines for Vietnamese learners

of English as a foreign language about gift offers

6 STRUCTURE OF THE STUDY:

The thesis is designed with five chapters

Chapter 1 is the “Introduction”, which presents the background to the study,

aims of the study, research questions, methods of study, scopes of the study, significance of the study and an overview of the thesis

Chapter 2 is “Literature review and Theoretical background” which provides

the readers with the literature review of the research, which attempts to present the theoretical background including general understanding about language learning process, an overview of gift offers in English and Vietnamese: commonly employed politeness strategies

Chapter 3 is “Methodology” which describes in detail the research

methodology which comprises the information of the subjects, instruments of data collection and methods of data analysis

Chapter 4 named “Findings and discussion” presents the two main issues Chapter 5 is the “Conclusion” This part provides conclusions on each of the

objectives, implications for using gift offers in teaching the English politeness strategies for gift offers to Vietnamese learners of English as a foreign language and suggestions for further research

CHAPTER 2:

LITERATURE REVIEW AND THEORETICAL

BACKGROUND

2.1 Review of the previous studies related to the theme of the thesis

There were some writers in the world investigating to speech acts such as Wierzbicka offering shares some common features with such other speech acts

as inviting, volunteering and promising Austin used speech acts to refer to an utterance and the total situation in which the utterance is issued Yule argues that there are three dimensions of speech acts Searle claims there are at base five broad classes of illocutionary points: declaratives, representatives, expressives,

directives and commisives

Gift giving is a frequent consumer activity receiving enormous attention from consumer researchers (e.g., Belk and Coon 1993; Otnes and Beltramini 1996; Sherry 1983, Blum-Kulla 1987)

2.2 Review of theoretical preliminaries employable for the research

2.2.1 Language and communication

Language is considered one of the highest and the most amazing achievements

of human kind in labor process Language and communication are the two factors that cannot separate A language can be defined as a system of signs (verbal or otherwise) intended for communication It is a system since its constituent components relate to each other in an intricate and yet organized fashion Again, it is intended for communication, for it can be safely assumed that we speak to pass on information to others But communication is not the only function of language In fact, language can be used for dreaming, internal monologue, soliloquy, poetry, etc For the sake of this discussion, we take the position that, essentially, language plays a communicative role

Communication can be viewed as a matter of coding and de-coding linguistic information The speaker codes information and puts his thoughts into words, while the listener de-codes the linguistic information, taking the input from the

speaker and translating it back into a thought In this scenario, it is the code (in this case language) that matters for communication Individuals with a common code can communicate because they share that code This is an intuitively appealing view given that communication in our everyday lives so often relies

on language, be it in face-to-face conversation, talking on the phone, writing an e-mail, or other forms of exchange The position that it is the code that matters for communication is nicely phrased by the philosopher John Searle:

“One can in certain special circumstances ‘request’ someone to leave the room without employing any conventions, but unless someone has a language one cannot request of someone that he e.g., undertake a research project on the problem of diagnosing and treating mononucleosis in undergraduates in American universities.” (Searle, 1969, p 38)

2.2.2 Communicative competence

Communicative competence is a term in linguistics which refers to a language user's grammatical knowledge of syntax, morphology, phonology and the like, as well as social knowledge about how and when to use utterances appropriately The concept of communicative competence (a term coined by linguist Dell Hymes in 1972) grew out of resistance to the concept of linguistic competence introduced by Noam Chomsky (1965)

Most regretfully, Hyme’s definition of communicative competence is misinterpreted as being different from linguistic competence That is, linguistic competence, which is a part of communicative competence according to Hymes’s definition, is separated from communicative competence To correct such misconception, Canal and Swain (1980) suggest that grammatical accuracy should be included as an element of communicative competence, and that rules

of language use cannot be operated if rules of grammar are excluded Accordingly, they proposed a theoretical framework of communicative

competence which include four components: (1) grammatical competence, the

ability to master the linguistic form including vocabulary, word formation,

sentence formation and so on; (2) discourse competence, the ability to combine

grammatical forms and meanings to achieve a unified spoken or written test in

different genres; (3) strategic competence, the ability to mastery of how to use

communication strategies, which can compensate for breakdown of

communication due the performance variables; and (4) sociolinguistic

of utterances in different social contexts

Dittmar (1976) points out that linguistic codes are not the only component of communicative competence He argues that communicative competence also includes a whole repertoire of psychological, social, and pragmatic strategies The elaboration of communicative competence and the identification of its components gave socio-pragmatics the new role of determining "what a speaker needs to know to be able to communicate effectively in culturally significant settings" (Rivers, 1981: 84) The possession of this kind of knowledge and the ability to use it in organizing communication had been noted as related to the degree of socialization of the speaker

As sociolinguistic competence is claimed to take a crucial role in verbal communication, the sociolinguistic aspect starts to be valued For example, Cao Xuan Hao (1991), in his study on sociolinguistic competence in complimenting act between speakers of Vietnamese and American English, explores socio-cultural differences between the two societies, in order to locate universality and specificity of the speech act in different languages For example, the categories

of complimenting strategies may exist universally in languages, but they may carry different semantic meanings to achieve different functions For example,

the word “like” in “I like your dress.” has the meaning of praise in American

norm That is, speakers of American English tend to use “like” to serve the function of compliment On the other hand, Vietnamese speakers tend to assign

the meaning of “muốn, thích” to the word “like,” and thus the word “like”

functions as direct requesting in Vietnamese culture

2.2.3 John Rogers Searle’s definition of speech acts

John Searle (1969) brought greater systematization to the ideas which Austin had so perceptively explored He focused on the idea that meaning is a kind of doing He claimed that the study of language is just a sub-part of the theory of action Searle crystallized the concepts of illocutionary act and illocutionary force to the extent where one can reasonably speak of his speech act theory as the classical account which functions as a point of departure for subsequent work on speech acts The term "speech act theory" is

in practice a reference to illocutionary acts

The conditions which were required to be present if a given speech act was to be effectively performed, were used by Searle to offer definitions of various speech acts Searle proposes four kinds of rules on the basis of these conditions:

(1) Propositional Content Rules: specify the kind of meaning

expressed by the propositional part of an utterance;

(2) Preparatory Rules: delineate the conditions which are pre-requisite

to the performance of the speech act;

(3) Sincerity Rules: outline the conditions which must obtain if the speech

act is to be performed sincerely;

(4) Essential Rules: specify what the speech act must conventionally count

as

On the basis of these four rule types, different speech acts can be easily distinguished In other words, speech act theory lends itself to establishing systems of classification for illocutions

Searle (1979), as an improvement of the classification of the speech acts proposed by Austin, classifies speech acts into:

a) Representatives: commit S (peaker) to the truth of some proposition;

b) Directives: count as attempts to bring about some effect through the action

of H(earer);

c) Expressives: count as the expression of some psychological state;

d) Commissives: commit S to some future action;

e) Declaratives: are speech acts whose "successful" performance brings

about the correspondence between the propositional content and reality

2.2.4 Speech act theory

John Rogers Searle (cf Searle, 1981.) has been credited with the speech act theory However, any attempt at understanding what is meant by the so-called speech act theory would be a failure unless one distinguishes between 'speech situation', 'speech event', and 'speech acts'

The most useful distinction between the three terms has been proposed

by Hymes (1972) Within a community one finds many situations associated with speech, such as meals, parties These situations, however, are not in themselves governed by consistent rules throughout Consequently, a simple relabeling of them in terms of speech will not do much It is, therefore, more useful to restrict the term "speech event" to activities that are directly governed by rules or norms for the use of speech Samples of conversations occurring in such activities as private conversations, class lectures, etc belong in this category "Speech acts," in a narrower sense, are the minimal terms of the set "speech situation, speech event, and speech act."

A speech act is an utterance which functions as a functional unit in communication It serves as the minimal unit of analysis Speech acts are conditioned by rules of conduct and interpretation Acts such as giving reports, making promises, and apologizing belong to this category

One significant misconception that may stem from Searle's classification of speech acts is that each conversation consists of only one single speech act

A good number of conversations, however, are multifunctional According to Labov and Fanshel (1977: 29), "most utterances can be seen as performing several speech acts simultaneously." Conversation is not a chain of utterances,

but rather a matrix of utterances and actions "bound together by a web of understanding and reactions."

Speech act theory, even though influential in a number of fields, has not been without its critics Flowerdew (1990: 81-103) lists the most important flaws and drawbacks of the speech act theory These flaws are perceivable in the following domains:

1) the exact number of speech acts;

2) discrete categories versus scale of meaning;

3) indirect speech acts and concept of literal force;

4) contrast between specific and diffuse acts;

5) size of speech act realization forms;

6) relation between locution, illocution, and interaction; and

7) relation between the whole and the parts in discourse

Any account of speech act theory should never overlook the so-called felicity conditions According to Austin (1963: 63), the term felicity condition refers to the criteria which must be satisfied if a speech act is to achieve its purpose In other words, for a speech act to be appropriately performed or realized, there are some conventions These are referred to as felicity conditions

or the so-called social conventions The speakers and the listeners should heed these conditions to guarantee the achievement of the purposes for which any given speech act is performed

Several types of felicity conditions have been suggested: (1) Preparatory conditions relate to whether the person performing a speech act has the authority to do so; (2) Sincerity conditions relate to the degree of sincerity with which a speech act is performed; and (3) Essential conditions relate to

the way the speaker, having performed a speech act, is committed to a certain kind of belief or behavior (cf Searle, 1981)

Speakers of a language, however, may sometimes fail to commit the felicity conditions of an utterance for one purpose or another According to Lyons

(1977: 157), the utterance "Will you drive?" is inappropriate as a request if the speaker knows that the hearer has not learnt to drive, and the mutual recognition

of such inappropriateness would, in turn, lead to an interpretation of a different order (e.g joking, sarcasm, etc.) Austin (1962) refers to such utterances as infelicitous

2.2.5 Classification of speech acts

Speech acts can be analysed on three levels:

• Locutionary act, the performance of an utterance: the actual utterance and

its ostensible meaning, comprising phonetic, phatic and rhetic acts corresponding to the verbal, syntactic and semantic aspects of any meaningful utterance In speech-act theory, a locutionary act is the act of making a meaningful utterance Also known as a locution or an utterance ac, the term locutionary act was introduced by British philosopher John L Austin in How to

Do Things With Words (1962) American philosopher John Searle has replaced Austin's concept of the locutionary act with what Searle calls the propositional act i.e., the act of expressing a proposition "In performing a locutionary act

we shall also be performing such an act as:

asking or answering a question;

giving some information or an assurance or a warning;

announcing a verdict or an intention;

pronouncing sentence;

making an appointment or an appeal or a criticism;

making an identification or giving a description; and the numerous like (John L Austin, How to Do Things With Words, 2nd ed Harvard University Press, 1975)

• Illocutionary act: the pragmatic 'illocutionary force' of the utterance, thus its

intended significance as a socially valid verbal action In speech-act theory, an illocutionary act is the way in which a sentence is used to express an attitude with a certain function or "force" (called illocutionary force)

Steven Davis notes that an illocutionary act can be made explicit "by the use

of a performative verb formula For example, if a speakers says, 'I'll be there'

and it is unclear whether it is a promise that has been made the speaker can make it explicit by saying 'I promise that I'll be there'" ("Anti-Individualism and Speech-Act Theory" in Foundations of Speech Act Theory, 1994)

• Perlocutionary act: its actual effect, such as persuading, convincing, scaring,

enlightening, inspiring, or otherwise getting someone to do or realize something, whether intended or not (Austin 1962) In speech-act theory, a perlocutionary act is an action or state of mind brought about by, or as a consequence of, saying something Also known as perlocutionary effect "The distinction between the illocutionary act and the perlocutionary act is important," says Ruth M Kempson: "the perlocutionary act is the consequent effect on the hearer which the speaker intends should follow from his utterance" (Semantic Theory) a perlocutionary act is an act performed by saying something, and not in saying something Persuading, angering, inciting, comforting and inspiring are often perlocutionary acts; but they would never begin an answer to the question 'What did he say?' Perlocutionary acts, in contrast with locutionary and illocutionary acts, which are governed by conventions, are not conventional but natural acts (Austin [1955], p 121) Persuading, angering, inciting, etc cause physiological changes in the audience, either in their states or behavior; conventional acts do not."(Aloysius Martinich, Communication and Reference Walter de Gruyter, 1984)

2.2.6 Brown and Levinson’s theory of politeness

The theory of politeness proposed by Brown and Levinson (1987) is widely recognized and remains relevant to contemporary research as the basis for further elaboration (e.g Harris 2001: 452, Pérez de Ayala 2001: 144-5) It is also (together with Leech’s model) the most common model presented in textbooks for students of pragmatics, e.g Yule (1989), Thomas (1995), Mey (2000), and Cameron (2005)

The general frame for this model (Brown and Levinson 1987: 4) is the assumption about essentially rational and efficient nature of communication lying also at the heart of Grice’s Co-operative principle (CP) In this conception,

the Co-operative principle (CP) is understood as the default principle governing verbal interaction, which is not deviated from without a reason Politeness, then,

is interpreted as a principle motivating such deviations from the most efficient way of communication, in other words, a major underlying motivation for flouting the maxims of Co-operative principle (CP) The word major does justice

to the fact that there are, as Brown and Levinson admit (1987: 95), other motives for not following the maxim, such as to avoid responsibility

However, unlike Co-operative principle (CP), politeness does not have an irrevocable status as a principle It cannot be interpreted as the background presumption with which interlocutors enter interaction In this respect, Brown and Levinson disagree with Leech, who argues that both principles, i.e CP (Co-operative principle and PP (Politeness Principle) are basically coordinated (Leech 1995: 80) They point out (1987: 5) that politeness must be expressed in a clear way, i.e openly manifested

To substantiate this claim, they invoke Goffman’s notion of a ‘virtual offence’ (1987: 33) which is supposed to predict that “the non-communication of the polite attitude will be read not merely as the absence of that attitude, but as the inverse, the holding of an aggressive attitude.” To draw a contrastive parallel with Co-operative principle (CP), it means that one does not set out to look for a possible interpretation of an utterance as polite, contrary to what it communicates

at face value This contrasts with the way the mechanism of looking for an alternative interpretation works in the case of conversational implicatures, interpreted as cooperative contributions at a deeper level despite superficial flouting of the CP Brown and Levinson’s example of ‘Shut your mouth’ demonstrates this clearly – there is hardly any possibility to read it as an expression of polite attitude

To get straight to the core of Brown and Levinson’s theory, understanding their notion of face is essential

2.2.7 The notion of face

Brown and Levinson present their theory as an abstract model of communication They introduce a Model Person (MP), whose two basic attributes are rationality and face (1987: 58) Rationality is interpreted as means-end reasoning, which manifests itself on the level of verbal interaction by way of

“deriving linguistic strategies as means satisfying communicative and oriented ends” The assumption about rational and cooperative behavior is derived from language usage, where inferences known as ‘conversational implicatures’ are made on the basis of this very assumption

face-The central notion of face is defined as “the public self-image that every member wants to claim for himself” and comprises two aspects, i.e negative and positive face

Negative face is defined as: “the want of every ‘competent adult member’ that his actions be unimpeded by others” In other words, it is linked to the basic human desire to be independent and free from imposition

Positive face is then defined in the following way: “the want of every member that his wants be desirable to at least some others.” This aspect of face

is therefore the space for, so to speak, filling up the autonomous being with personal content, i.e self-image that the person wants others to respect and appreciate

Brown and Levinson borrowed the concept of face from Goffman (1967), however, they acknowledge that it is also related to the notion implied by the idiomatic expression “to lose face” This connection suggests that interlocutors are aware of the risk to one’s face involved in interaction and therefore of their interdependence as far as face maintenance is concerned Thus, it is argued that,

in general, it is “to mutual interest of two MPs to maintain each other’s face”, unless one of the participants can secure respect for his/her face without complying with this reciprocity, e.g by coercion, trickery This imbalance concerning what might be called face demands and face rights brings up the question of social factors, such as power and distance, playing a crucial role in

shaping the interaction process I will take a closer look at these factors later in this chapter

It is significant that Brown and Levinson treat both aspects of face as basic wants The attention paid to them in communication is interpreted as having rational foundation in terms of practical means-end reasoning mentioned above In terms of face wants, this means that in order to have one’s wants respected and at least partially satisfied by others, one has to pay the same respect and attention However, it is pointed out that there is an obvious limitation regarding the desire for acceptance and appreciation Apart from the most general symbolic satisfaction of wants, people usually have their individual positive face wants targeted at particular people or groups of people

The notion of face as an abstract notion that interlocutors orient themselves is claimed to be a universal phenomenon underlying communication in all languages On the other hand, Brown and Levinson stress that in particular societies, it is subject to cultural specification arising from specific understanding of the role of an individual in society, which may, among other things, include different scope for personal territory or limitation on public display, as well as culture-specific preconditions of extra face concerns In communicating, people may give a threat to another individual’s self-image or face want, they tend to create a face threatening act (FTA) Some actions might

be taken to lessen the possible threat This is described as a face saving act

Brown and Levinson (1987:60) do not raise rules or principles but suggest five strategies (figure 1) to deal with face threatening acts (FTAs) They also number these five strategies to mean that the greater the face threat is, the greater –numbered strategy should be employed

5 Don’t do the FTA

Figure 1: Possible strategies for doing FTAs (Brown and Levinson, 1987)

The diagram shows that when encountering an FTA, the speaker can choose one of the five possibilities

Brown and Levinson (1987) imply by numbering the possibilities that negative politeness is “more polite” than positive politeness This can be seen in the diagram where they number the former and the latter (off record and with redressive action) respectively For universal validity, Nguyen Quang (1999:129) proposes another one

4.off record

2 Positive politeness

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

1999:130) 2.2.8 Politeness principles

In sociolinguistics and conversation analysis (CA), politeness strategies are speech acts that express concern for others and minimize threats to self-esteem ("face") in particular social contexts

Politeness has been defined as the features of language which serve to mediate norms of social behavior, in terms of such notions as courtesy, rapport, deference, and distance The politeness principle may be formulated as

a series of maxims which people assume are being followed in the utterances of others These maxims include:

Rule 1 Don’t impose is appropriate to situations where there is an

acknowledged difference in power and status between participants According to this rule, S who is being polite will avoid, mitigate or ask permission, or apologize for making A do anything which A does not want to do

Negative politeness

Without redressive action

Rule 2 Offer options, a more informal politeness rule, is appropriate to

situations in which the participants’ status and power are approximately equal but not socially close It refers to expressing oneself in such a way that one’s opinion or request can be ignored without being contradicted or rejected

Rule 3 Encourage feelings of camaraderie, appropriate to intimates or close

friends, attaches to the governing principle that participants not only show an active interest in the other, by asking personal questions and making personal remarks, but also show regard and trust by being open about details of one’s own life, experiences, feelings, and the like

(cf Lakoff, 1973: 199) Clearly the politeness principle and the cooperative principle are often in conflict with each other There is mutual incompatibility between politeness and truth as well as politeness and brevity People are usually conscious of such collisions between the two principles The term "white lie" has been desperately coined in an attempt to manifest the surrender of truth to politeness The observation of politeness often results in the speaker's use of indirect

speech acts These are, according to Searle (1979), cases in which one

illocutionary act is performed indirectly, by way of another Sadock (1974) has coined the terms "imperatives" and "quaclaratives" to indicate the apparent hybrid status or the indirectness of imperatives and declarations respectively

It is important to note, however, that not all writers are using the term politeness in the same way Grice and Searle (and Brown and Levinson (1987)) are principally concerned with politeness as an underlying motivation for indirectness Leech (1983), however, is concerned with politeness as a surface-level adherence to social norms Politeness, according to Leech (1983), does not need to have anything to do with any genuine desire to be pleasant to one's interactants

Leech (1983) suggests six maxim of politeness:

- Maxim of Tact: minimize cost to other, maximize benefit to other

- Maxim of Generosity: minimize benefit to self, maximize cost to self

- Maxim of Approbation: minimize dispraise of other, maximize praise of

other

- Maxim of Agreement: minimize the disagreement between self and

others, maximize agreement between self and other

- Maxim of Sympathy: minimize antipathy between self and other,

maximize sympathy between self and other

“We can thereby define politeness in terms of favorableness (and correspondingly impoliteness in terms of unfavorableness) because politeness strategies are in some ways favorable to hearer, while impolite statements are unfavorable.” ( Eelen, 2001:8)

According to Brown and Levinson (1987), the degree of mitigation required depends on three factors:

1 Social distance (i.e a composite of psychologically real factors such as age,

sex, intimacy, etc.);

2 Relative power (i.e usually resulting from social and economical status);

3 Size of imposition

All these factors have to be weighted in relation to the cultural context and all should be considered as potentially negotiable within interactions, rather than as givens The politeness principle has a regulative role rather than the aim of creating and maintaining social relationships

2.2.9 Classification of politeness strategies

Politeness strategies are used to formulate message in order to save the hearer’s face when face-threatening acts are inevitable or desired In Brown and Levinson (1987:180), there are four main types of politeness strategies: bald on-record, negative politeness, positive politeness and off-record (indirect)

2.2.9.1 Bald On-record

Bald on-record strategies usually do not attempt to minimize the threat to the hearer’s face although there are ways that bald on-record politeness can be used

in trying to minimize face threatening acts (FTAs) implicitly Often using such a strategy will shock or embarrass the addressee and this strategy is most often utilized in situations where the speaker has a close relationship with the audience, such as family or close friends Brown and Levinson (1987:181) outline various cases, in which one might use the bald on-record strategy,

including great urgency or desperation: Watch out! Speaking as if great efficiency is necessary: hear me out, task –oriented: Pass me the hammer, little

or no desire to maintain someone’s face: don’t forget to clean the blinds! Doing the FTAs is in the interest of the hearer: Your headlights are on; offers: leave it!

I will clean up later

2.2.9.2 Positive politeness

Positive politeness strategies are intended to avoid giving offense by highlighting friendliness These strategies include juxtaposing criticism with compliments, establishing common ground, and using jokes

They seek to minimize the threat to the hearer’s positive face and are used to make the hearer feel good about himself, his interests or possessions and most usually used in situations where the audience knows each other fairly well In addition to hedging and attempts to avoid conflict, some strategies of positive politeness include statements of friendship, solidarity, compliments and the

following example attend to hearer’s interest, needs and wants: You look sad

Can I do anything? Use solidarity in-group identity markers: Hey, mate, can you lend me a dollar?Be optimistic: I will just come along, if you don’t mind;

include both speaker (S) and hearer (H) in activity: If we help each other, I

guess we will both sink or swim in this course; wish or promise: If you wash the

dishes, I will vacuum the floor ; exaggerate interest in H and his interests: That is

nice haircut you got, where did you got it?; Avoid disagreement: yes, it is rather

long

Brown and Levinson (1987) list 15 positive politeness strategies With first eight

of the strategies, the speaker claims common ground, “indicating that S and H belong to the same set of persons who share specific wants, including goals and

values” (p 103) The latter strategies are used to convey that speaker and hearer are co-operators and have the same goals Consequently, if speaker requires something from the hearer, he can use the strategies to hint that by attending to the speaker, the hearer is acting in his own interest as well

Positive techniques are usable not only for FTA redress, but in general as

a kind of social accelerator, where S, in using them, indicates that he wants to

‘come closer’ to H Therefore, Brown and Levinson (1987) sketch 15 positive politeness strategies applied by speakers in communication as follows:

Strategy 1: Notice, attend to H (his interests, wants, needs, goods)

Goodness, you cut your hair! By the way, I came to borrow some flour

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

What a beautiful house you have!

Strategy 3: Intensify interest to H ( by (i)‘making a good story’, (ii)involving

switching back and forth between past and present tenses, (iii)using directly quoted speech rather than indirect reported speech, (iv)using tag question, expressions of cajolers, appealers or (v)exaggerating facts)

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 color, you’re more for pinks and blues.’

Strategy 4: Use in-group identity markers (usages (i) of address forms, (ii) of

language or dialect, (iii) of jargon or slang, and (iv) of ellipsis.)

Bring me your dirty clothes to wash, honey

Strategy 5: Seek agreement (by the safe topics, repetition or minimal

encouragers)

A: I had a flat tyre on the way home

B: Oh God, flat tyre!

Strategy 6: Avoid disagreement (instances of ‘token agreement’, of

‘pseudo-agreement’, of ‘white lies’, of ‘hedging opinions’)

A: Have you got friends?

B: I have friends So-called friends I had friends Let me put it that way

Strategy 7: Presuppose/ raise/ assert common ground (with (i) gossip, small

talk; (ii) point-of-view operations of personal-centre switch, of time switch, of place switch; (iii) presupposition manipulations.)

A: Oh this cut hurts awfully, Mum

B: Yes dear, it hurts terribly, I know

Strategy 8: Joke

How about lending me this old heap of junk? (H’s new Cadillac)

Strategy 9: Assert or presuppose S’s knowledge of and concern for H’s wants

I know you can’t bear parties, but this one will really be good- do come!

Strategy 10: Offer, promise

Take it easy! I’ll help you

Strategy 11: Be optimistic

Look, I’m sure you won’t mind if I remind you to do the dishes tonight

Strategy 12: Include both S and H in the activity

Let’s get on with dinner, eh?

Strategy 13: Give (or ask for) reasons

Why not lend me your cottage for the weekend?

Strategy 14: Assume or assert reciprocity

I’ll come with you if you tell me the truth

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

2.2.9.3 Negative politeness strategies

Negative politeness strategies are intended to avoid giving offense by showing deference These strategies include questioning, hedging, and presenting disagreements as opinions

Negative politeness strategies are oriented towards the hearer’s negative face and emphasize avoidance of imposition on the hearer These strategies presume that the speaker will be imposing on the listener and there is a higher potential for awkwardness embarrassment than in bald on record strategies and positive politeness strategies Negative face is the desire to remain autonomous Here are

some examples: be indirect: Would you know where Oxford street is? ; use hedges or questions: Perhaps, he might have taken it, maybe Could you please

pass the rice? ; Be pessimistic: You could not find your way to lending me a

thousand dollars, could you? ; minimize the imposition: it is not too much out of

your way, just a couple of blocks ; apologize: I am sorry, it’s a lot to ask, but can

you lend me a thousand dollars? ; Favor seeking or a speaker asking the hearer for a favor is a common example of negative politeness strategies in use Held observes three main stages in favor-seeking: the preparatory phase, the focal phase and the final phase:

The preparatory phase: is when the favor-seeking is preceded by elaborate

precautions against loss of face to both sides It often involves signals of openings and markers to be used to clarify the situation The request is often softened, made less direct and imposing (e.g.: past continuous “I was wondering”; informal tag “What would you reckon?”

The focal phase is subdivided into elements such as asker’s reason or

constraints (e.g “I have tried everywhere but cannot get one”, the other face (e.g you are the only person I can turn to.)

The third phase is the final stage which consists of anticipatory thanks,

promises and compliments (e.g I knew you would say yes You are angel.)

According to Brown and Levinson (1990: 70), “Negative politeness, is

oriented mainly toward partially satisfying (redressing) H’s negative face, his basic want to maintain claims of territory and self-determination Negative politeness, thus, is essentially avoidance-based, and realizations of negative-politeness strategies consist in assurances that the speaker recognizes and respects the addressee’s negative- face wants and will not (or will only

minimally) interfere with the addressee’s freedom of action”

Nguyen Quang, refers to negative politeness as “any communicative act

(verbal or nonverbal) which is appropriately intended to show that speaker does not want to impinge on the addressee’s privacy, thus enhancing the sense of

distance between them.” (2005:30) Generally speaking, negative politeness

avoids imposing on the addressees and remains the distance between interlocutors 10 negative politeness strategies are pointed out by Brown and Levinson (1987, 1990) as following:

Strategy 1: Be conventionally indirect

Why for God’s sake are you asking me?

Strategy 2: Question/ Hedge

Could you possibly by any chance lend me your car for just a few minutes?

I rather think it’s hopeless

Strategy 3: Be pessimistic

I don’t suppose there’d be any chance of you doing me a favor

Strategy 4: Minimize the imposition

I just want to ask you if you could lend me a single sheet of paper

Strategy 5: Give deference

Did you move my luggage?

Yes, sir, I thought perhaps you wouldn’t mind and…

Strategy 6: Apologize (for doing an FTA with at least 4 ways to communicate

regret or reluctance to do an FTA: (i) admit the impingement, (ii) indicate reluctance, (iii) give overwhelming reasons, (iv) beg forgiveness)

I’m sorry for the late delivery

I beg your indulgence

Strategy 7: Impersonalize S and H (avoiding pronouns ‘I’ and ‘you’ by using (i)

performatives, (ii) imperatives, (iii) impersonal verbs, (iv) passive and circumstantial voices, (v) replacement of the pronouns ‘I’ and ‘you’ by indefinites, (vi) pluralization of the ‘you’ and ‘I’ pronouns, (vii) address terms

as ‘you’ avoidance, (viii) reference terms as ‘I’ avoidance, (ix) point-of-view distancing )

(To you) it is necessary to meet her at the airport!

It’s regretted that you’re not the successful applicant for this job Hey, don’t park your car here, mate

Strategy 8: State the FTA as a general rule (S doesn’t want to impinge but is

merely forced to by circumstances, is to state the FTA as an instance of some general social rule, regulation, or obligation)

Passengers are requested to submit tickets

Strategy 9: Nominalize (the facts of syntax suggest a ‘continuum’ from verb

through adjective to noun (Ross 1972) Degrees of negative politeness run hand

in hand with degrees of nounness.)

Your good performance on the examination impressed us favorably

Strategy 10: Redress other wants of H’s

I’ll never be able to repay you if you accept our staying for one more week

Nguyen Quang (2003: 183), from his observation of cross- cultural communication, adds one more negative politeness strategy:

Strategy 11: Avoid asking personal questions

In the positive politeness strategy- oriented communities, ‘asking personal questions’ is a considerably effective strategy to show concern to H Meanwhile, this is considered to interfere with H’s privacy Therefore, avoiding asking such private questions as: “How much do you earn a month?”, “How nice your skirt

is How much is it?”… is another negative politeness strategy

We have mentioned 15 positive politeness strategies and 11 negative politeness strategies, which are mainly used in communication However, it is expected that a clear-cut distinction between positive politeness strategies and negative politeness ones is hardly reached and completely relative In one utterance, we may find both negative politeness and positive politeness strategy applied:

Honey, wait for me for just a second?

(‘positive politeness’: in group identity marker- honey- and ‘negative politeness’: minimizing the imposition- just a second-)

2.2.9.4 Off- record (indirect)

The final politeness strategy is the indirect strategies This strategy use indirect language and remove the speaker from the potential to be imposing For example, a speaker using the indirect strategy might merely say “wow, it is getting cold in here” means that it would be nice if the listener would get up and turn up the thermostat without directly asking the listener to do so

1.2.10.5 Social factors affecting politeness strategies

According to Brown and Levinson (1978), in broad terms, research seems

to support the claim that three sociological factors are crucial in determining the level of politeness which a speaker (S) will use to an addressee (H); there are relative power (P) of H over S, the social distance (D) between S and H, and the ranking of the imposition (R) involved in doing the ace-threatening act (FTA)

D is a symmetric social dimension of similarity/difference within which S

and H stand for the purposes of this act In many cases (but not all ), it is based

on an assessment of the frequency of interaction and the kinds of material or non-material goods (including face) exchanged between S and H (or parties or representing S or H, or for whom S and H are representatives) An important part of the assessment of D will usually be measures of social distance based on stable social attributes The reflex of social closeness is, generally, the reciprocal giving and receiving of positive face

P is an asymmetric social dimension of relative power is the degree

to which H can impose his own plans and his own self-evaluation (face) at the express of S’s plans and self-evaluation In general there are two sources of pragmatics, either of which may be authorized and authorized-material control (over economic distribution and physical force) and metaphysical

control (over the actions of others, by virtue of metaphysical forces subscribed to by those others) In most cases an individual’s power is drawn from both these sources, or is thought to overlap them

R is a culturally and situationally defined ranking of impositions by

the degree to which they are considered to interfere with an agent’s wants of self-determination or of approval (his negative and positive face wants) In general, there are probably two such scales or ranks that are emically identifiable for negative-face FTAs: a ranking of impositions in promotion to the expenditure (a) of services (including the provision of time) and (b) of goods (including non-material good like information, as well as the expression of regard and other payments)

In any case, the function must capture the fact that all three dimensions P, D and R contribute to the seriousness of the FTA, and thus to a determination of the level of politeness with which, other things being equal, the FTA will be communicated

2.2.10 Offering as a speech act

In everyday conversation, people perform different types of speech acts and offering is one of those Making offer is very nice characteristic of every culture as it helps reveal people’s consideration toward each other and therefore reinforces social relationship and also makes life more interesting and meaningful The way people extend and respond to offers is more or less guided

by their beliefs, customs, personal characteristic etc, so the strategies the Western choose to perform the speech act cannot be the same as those chosen by the Easterners That is why a systematic and scientific observation on the problem should be made

According to Anna Wierzbicka (1987, p.191) “offer” has the following meaning:

- I think of X as something that could be good for you

- I say: I will cause X to happen if you say you would want me to do it

- I think that you may want it to happen

- I don’t know if you don’t want it to happen

- I say this because I want to cause you to know that I would cause it to happen

if you said that you wanted it to happen

- I assume that you will say if you want it to happen

To offer to do something means to say that one is willing to do it and that one will do it if the hearer (H) says that he wants one to do it The speaker (S) assume that the proposed of events could be good for the hearer, but he doesn’t take it for granted that the hearer will want it and he leaves the hearer freedom to decide whether or not the proposed action should take place In the case “offer”

can take a noun as a direct object One can say not only X offered to do Z but also X offered Y a Z

It seems quite clear that offering implies something like a benefit for the hearer,

but it is not quite clear how the relevant component should be formulated

Wierzbicka (1987) argues that the formula “I think of X as something that you

may want” may be more appropriate than the formula “I think of X as something

that would be good for you”

Offers can be less or more tentative, but they always embody a degree of

uncertainty “I don’t know if you want me to do it” Consequently, they always

call for an answer from the hearer In this aspect, they are similar to questions

and in fact they often take the form of questions (“Would you like a cup of

tea?”, “Can I help you?”

One might suggest that offers have a double illocutionary purpose : to let the hearer know of speaker’s willingness to do something for him and to cause the

hearer to say “yes” or “no”, to enable the speaker to act accordingly The fact that responses to offers are frequently double: “Yes, thank you” or “No, thank

you.” would support this

According to Wierzbicka (1987:191-192), offering shares some common features with such other speech acts as inviting, volunteering and promising but there are still differences among them:

- In the case of inviting, the action is to be performed by the hearer whereas it

is to be performed by speaker in that of offering

- Volunteering does not have to be directly beneficial for hearer, or indeed for other people We volunteer to do something that has to be done Consequently, we want free some people from the burden of having to do it and thus benefit the indirect

- Promising refers to actions situated in distant or indefinite future and consequent they are normally hypothetical than offering, which refers to the present of the immediate future

2.2.11 Gift offers

“Offering gifts” belongs to the type of offer something Gifts defined as “a thing

given willingly without payment” (Oxford Advanced Learner’s Encyclopedic Dictionary, 1998:79) Offering a gift is a culture-specific behavior What gift to offer, on what occasion, how to offer gifts and respond to the offer are not the same among different cultures Gift offerings were often made by themselves, but also accompanied the burnt offering Scholars believe that the term "gift offering" originally referred to all voluntary sacrifices, but that it later came to just refer to non-meat offerings

Consider the following advice:

- You have to give your present in public in the Middle East to show it is not a bribe but it is a good manner to give your present in private in Asia

- You must not give cutlery in Latin American because it suggests that you want to cut off relationship

- You must not give food or drink in Saudi Arabia because it suggests you think your hosts are not offering you enough to eat and drink