Politeness strategies in requests in the thorn birds

UNIVERSITY OF LANGUAGES AND INTERNATIONALSTUDIES FACULTY of OF POST-GRADUATE STUDIES ---NGUYỄN THỊ PHƯƠNG THẢO Politeness strategies in requests in “The thorn birds” Chiến lược lịch sự

VIETNAM NATIONAL UNIVERSITY, HANOI

UNIVERSITY OF LANGUAGES AND INTERNATIONAL

STUDIES FACULTY of POST-GRADUATE STUDIES

NGUYỄN THỊ PHƯƠNG THẢO

-Politeness strategies in requests in

The thorn birds

(Chiến lược lịch sự trong lời thỉnh cầu trong

"Tiếng Chim Hót Trong Bụi Mận Gai”)

M.A MINOR PROGRAMME THESIS

UNIVERSITY OF LANGUAGES AND INTERNATIONAL

STUDIES FACULTY of OF POST-GRADUATE STUDIES

-NGUYỄN THỊ PHƯƠNG THẢO

Politeness strategies in requests

in “The thorn birds”

(Chiến lược lịch sự trong lời thỉnh cầu trong Tiếng

Chim Hót Trong Bụi Mận Gai)

M.A MINOR PROGRAMME THESIS

published elsewhere or extracting in whole or in part from a thesis I have qualified for, except where reference is made in the text of the thesis.

No other person’s work has been used without due acknowledgement in the main text of the thesis

Hanoi, July 20 th , 2010

Nguyen Thi Phuong Thao

Secondly, I would like to express my deep gratitude towards the full help of teachers in the Post-graduate Department of the University of Languages and International Studies -Vietnam National University-Hanoi , who respond enthusiastically to my consultations with useful explanations and advice.

Last but not least, I would certainly never forget the warm encouragement of

my dedicated friends and all of members in my family who play as spiritual factors during my studying process.

The study is aimed at investigating how politeness strategies manifested in requests

in the novel “The Thorn Birds” It is compiled of two main chapters Chapter 1 reviews the major theories on politeness: Lakoff’s politeness rules, Leech’s politeness maxims and Brown & Levinson’s politeness strategies Chapter 2, which is based on Brown &

Levinson’s framework, investigates the politeness in the requests employed by the characters

of “The Thorn Birds” The research findings are discussed in two sections The first section deals with the manifestation of each strategy The result shows that characters of this novel use positive politeness in their requests at a little higher frequency than negative politeness The second section is concerned with the variation of the proportion between positive and negative politeness depending on social relationship It attempts to provide possible

explanation to the proportion in each case This thesis can serve as a start for some further study.

Table of contents

Declaration………

Acknowledgement………

Abstract ……… …………

i ii iii Abbreviations ……… ……… vi

Part A: Introduction ……… 1

1 Rationale ……… 2

2 Aims of the study ……… … 2

3 Scope of the study ……… …

4 Overview of the work ………

2 2 5 Methods of the study ……… 3

6 Design of the study ……… 3

Part b: Development ……… … 4

Chapter 1: Theoretical background. ……… 4

1.1 The Speech act ……… 4

1.1.1 Speech act performance 4

1.1.2 Locutionary act, Illocutionary act, Perlocutionary act

1.1.3 Speech act classifications ……… …

1.1.4 The speech act of request ………

5 6 7 1.2 Politeness and indirectness in requests …… 9

1.2.1 Theory of politeness ……… 9

1.2.1.1 Politeness principles ………

1.2.1.2 The face-management view on politeness ………

10 14 1.2.1.2.1 Face ………… 11

1.2.1.2.2 Face threatening acts

1.2.1.2.3 Politeness strategies ………

15 16 1.2.2 Social factors affecting politeness ………

1.2.3 Scales of indirectness in requests ……….………

18 19

Chapter 2: Politeness strategies in requests in “The Thorn Birds”

22

2.1 Positive politeness strategies in requests in “The Thorn Birds” 22

2.1.1 Strategy 1: Notice, attend to H (his interests, wants, needs, goods) 22

2.1.2 Strategy 2: Exaggerate (interest, approval, sympathy with H) 23

2.1.3 Strategy 3: Intensify interest to H ……… 23

2.1.4 Strategy 4: Use in-group identity markers ……….…… 24

2.1.5 Strategy 5: Seek agreement ……… 24

2.1.6 Strategy 6: Avoid disagreement ……… 25

2.1.7 Strategy 7: Presuppose / raise / assert common ground ……… 26

2.1.8 Strategy 8: Joke ……… 26

2.1.9 Strategy 9: Assert or presuppose S’s knowledge of and concern for H’s wants… 27

2.1.10 Strategy 10: Offer, promise ……… 27

2.1.11 Strategy 11: Be optimistic ……… 27

2.1.12 Strategy 12: Include both S and H in the activity ……… 27

2.1.13 Strategy 13: Give (or ask for) reasons ……… 28

2.1.14 Strategy 14: Assume or assert reciprocity ……… 28

2.1.15 Strategy 15: Give gifts to H (goods, sympathy, understanding, cooperation) 28 2.2 Negative politeness strategies manifested in requests in “The Thorn Birds” 2

8 2.2.1 Strategy 1: Be conventionally indirect ……… 28

2.2.2 Strategy 2: Question, hedge ……… 29

2.2.3 Strategy 3: Be pessimistic ……… 30

2.2.4 Strategy 4: Minimize the imposition ……… 30

2.2.5 Strategy 5: Give deference ……… 31

2.2.6 Strategy 6: Apologize ……… 32

2.2.7 Strategy 7: Impersonalise S and H ……… 32

2.2.8 Strategy 8: State the FTA as a general rule ……… 32

2.2.9 Strategy 9: Nominalize ……… 32

2.2.10 Strategy 10: Go on record as incurring a debt, or as not indebting H 33

2.3 Politeness strategies in requests in “The Thorn Birds” seen from S-H relationship 34

2.3.1 Lovers ……… 35

2.3.2 Family members …… 35

2.3.3 Acquaintances ……… 36

2.3.4 Strangers ……… 36PART C: CONCLUSION ……… 38REFERENCES …… 40

Part A: Introduction

1 Rationale

The basic function of language is “very similar in different societies, thoughwith different linguistic conventions, in all parts of the world, because all peoplehave similar needs, similar relationships, and in general share the same world” Robin

(1952:6) This idea must be shared by the fact that language is created as a necessary

demand of human life with the final aim, that is for communication in which peopleexchange information and express their opinions and attitudes However, how peoplecommunicate successfully in certain contexts has inspired to the linguists whoseresearch has contributed a lot to the development of communication among humanbeings

Any beginning-level Vietnamese students of English easily form thefollowing sentences correctly as firstly having a conversation with an English-speaking person: Are you married? How old are you? But it is rather difficult for thatforeigner to accept such personal questions That is the reason why Richards(1992:32) makes a distinction between the two notions linguistic competence and

communicative competence, which refers to “….the ability not only to apply the grammatical rules of a language in order to form grammatically correct sentences but also to know when and where to use these sentences and to whom.” This

statement highly appreciates the important role of cultural knowledge in

contributing to a successful communication Being aware of the active part ofcommunication competence is along with setting up appropriate strategies inteaching English for Vietnamese students by giving out variable cultural and socialcontexts in each English class And it is advisable to choose politeness situations toillustrate in such those cases because politeness is one of the most great elements

effecting the choice of language: “When learning a second language, one needs to acquire the new culture’s politeness framework, which is very different from that of one’s own culture” (Celce-Murcia et al 2000:26) Strategies to choose language

politely, in fact, reflects most on the way people making a request because requestshortly means “to ask your hearer whether he is willing or able to do something”(Leech & Svartvik, 1975:147) Furthermore, during process of researching, we

realize that so far little research has focused on politeness strategies in requests in aliterature work.

Literature is, as being judged, a reflection of society and culture And the factthat the more a literary work reflects the present life truthfully and vividly, the moresuccessful it will get, since it is said that art is for human sakes, not for art sakes.Therefore language, especially daily language in the literary works will also bepresented vividly And conversational language in a great novel, apparently, isreliable for our observation

For those reasons presented above, we decided to choose the topic:

“Politeness strategies in requests in “The thorn birds”

2 Aims of the study

- To explore how politeness strategies are manifested in the requests in theEnglish language appropriately

- To investigate the ways characters in a literary work operate their requestspolitely in their conversations

3 Scope of the study

Among linguistic, paralinguistic and non-verbal aspects related to politeness,our study only deals with the first one It focuses on positive and negative politenessstrategies based on Brown & Levinson’s (1987) theoretical framework And the data

is based on all of the utterances containing the requests made by characters in “TheThorn Birds”

4 Overview of the work

“The Thorn Birds”- as the comment of Sweetie Pie in his “A Book Review ofThe Thorn Birds”: “Of all of Colleen McCullough's novels, The Thorn Birds madethe greatest impact on my ideas of what a great book should be I was drawn into thestory and could not put it down until I finished it a week later”- one of the greatworks of every time was written by an amateur writer- Collen McCullough in 1976.Being different from some previous works, all whose theme is also about the history

of a family in Australia, but they almost reflect the development and thedegeneration of the bourgeoisie class “The Thorn Birds” is the story of threegenerations in a labour family named Cleary The next generations, instead ofrefusing the tradition values left by the previous, inherit and develop those.Simultaneously, getting good characteristics of family such as hard-working,

independence, steady enough to pass hard life, they also make some positive changes

to catch up with the development of the age If Fiona- the first generation is braveenough to suffer from every misfortune but give no struggle for the fate, her daughterMeggie- a modern girl tries to get her happiness from the hand of God-having a babywith a priest who she loves, and Justine- Meggie’s daughter has a quietly differentmoral standards There are many characters in the novel but the noble ones are Fiona(Fee), Meggie, a priest named Ralph and most of the incidents are surrounded by thelove story full of hindrance but romantic between Meggie and Ralph

The development of the novel is not only exposed via the meticulousdescription of the novelist but importantly, by the conversations among thecharacters in which we try to find how the characters operate their request politely

5 Methods of the study

Generally, the thesis employed the Quantitative Method, which is defined as aresearch method that relies less on interviews, observations, small numbers ofquestionnaires, focus groups, subjective reports and case studies but is much morefocused on the collection and analysis of numerical data and statistics Counting andmeasuring are common forms of quantitative methods The result of the research is anumber, or a series of numbers These are often presented in tables, graphs or otherforms of statistics which is the science and practice of developing human knowledgethrough the use of empirical data

6 Design of the study

The thesis comprises three main parts:

Part A: Introduction

This part includes five sub- parts: the rationale, aims, scope, methods anddesign of the study

Part B: Content

This is the nuclear part of the whole study containing three chapters

Chapter 1: Theoretical background

This chapter makes an overview of the theories on Speech Act, Speech Act ofrequest and Politeness theory which are treated as the major grounds for the analysiswork

Chapter 2: The study of politeness strategies manifested in requests in

conversations in “The Thorn Birds”

This chapter finds out how characters in the novel cover politeness strategies

in requests in their conversations

Part C: Conclusion

This part summarize somewhat has discussed in the above two parts and givesome suggestions for further study

Part B: development Chapter 1: Theoretical background

This chapter provides an overview of the theoretical background of the research It is divided into 2 main sections Section 1.1 discusses the key notions of speech act theory and how requests have been defined in speech theory Section 2.2 discusses the two major issues, politeness theory and indirectness in requests

1.1 The Speech Act theories

1.1.1 Speech Act performance

S.A is always an interesting topic for many linguists such as Hymes (1964),Searl (1969), Levinson (1983), Brown and Yule (1983), Smith and Richards (1983) Their works about it seems to never end because, firstly it is related to languagewhich may be changed time by time, and vary hugely from a place to another;secondly studying S.A is to find out how people deal with their own language tocommunicate effectively which indeed differs from society to society, even in thesame region

S.A was first introduced by Austin (1962), but before him, there were stillsome other theorists whose ideas, to some extent, are quite different from Austin’s.For example, Moore views “language of common sense” and Bertrand Russell seeseveryday language as “is somehow deficient and defective” Then they have anambitious to idealize language by removing its imperfections and illogicalities

In contrast, Austin claimed that there is no point in depriving theimperfections of language, instead during communication process people shouldconsider how to use and manage with it effectively and appropriately And thisreaction performs as his background to approach the term “ Speech Act” which is

defined in his famous book “How to do things with words”(1962) as “ We must consider the total situation in which the utterance is issued- the total Speech Act- if

we are to see the parallel between the statements and performative utterances” (1962:52) Later, G.Yule explicits the term “total situation” that in order to reach an

effective communication, both S and H are usually helped by the circumstancessurrounding the utterances what he calls “speech event” Thus, they share one thingthat S.A must be put in certain situation in order to be interpreted appropriately He

takes an example with the utterance: “This tea is really cold!” If this sentence is

uttered on a winter day, it is likely interpreted as a complaint but supposing on areally hot summer day, it may be considered a praise Agreeing with what Austin

stated before, G.Yule redefined S.A as “Actions performed via utterances are generally called Speech Acts and, in English, are commonly given more specific labels, such as apology, complaint, invitation, promise, or request”

Again, in Austin’s definition, appearing the term “performative” which he

uses in another phrase “Performative hypothesis” This term realizes words as

actions This is considered one of significant exploration not only particularly to himbut generally to a new step of language study Because before him, the otherslinguists with their term “truth- conditional approach” consider people’s utterances to

be always either true or false And then he gives more explanation by giving a cleardistinction between “constative” and “performative” According to him, “constative”

means an utterance can be judge to be true or false; for example, the sentence “This woman is 30 years old” is true if the age of the woman is 30, but false if the woman

is at the other age Performative, however is considered under different

view :“People not only use language to fit it with the world but also to performactions via utterances, that may, in some way change the world ” (Quoted in Dang

Thi Manh, 2005:11) The following sentence: “There is a snake on your feet” can

not be judged to be true or false but a warn toward the H and force him to give anaction to solve the problem (eg: stand quietly until the snake goes away)

Performatives can be given explicitly and implicitly The implicit performative is

illustrated in the example above, for the explicit performative, we have sentence :

Stop smoking!

1.1.2 Locutionary act, Illocutionary act, Perlocutionary act

The action performed via an utterance always consists of three related acts

The first is named “locutionary” which involves the basic act of an utterance

or produces a meaningful linguistic expression Someone who finds himselfincapable of uttering a certain language (for example, because those who are tongue-

tied or foreign) cannot produce a locutionary act A Vietnamese production of

“hsihfdru” will not normally count as a locutionary act because the utterance isnonsense, not fecilitous to the rules of Vietnamese language.

People do not create a meaningful sentence without any purpose Hence, whatparticipants intend to achieve via language in a communication process is called

“Illocutionary act” The illocutionary act is performed via the communication force

of an utterance, generally known as the illocutionary force S may use language to promise, warn, request, deny, apology However in different contexts, an utterance

can be interpreted differently For example, when somebody produces the English

locutionary act “The dog is very fierce”, he might want to warn the other not to touch

the dog or the sentence can be considered as a request to ask the host keep the dog in

a stage

The illocutionary act will have some effect on the H This effect is

perlocutionary act With the same utterance but under different situations, the H will interpret in different ways If the sentence “Where are you going?” occurs between

two people in Vietnam the H can understand it just a greeting, thus, no need to

answer but he can gives his Perlocutionary act by saying “Hi!” Yet we can not

apply such effect with the people from other countries When a Perlocutionary actcoincides with a Illocutionary act, then the communication is successful

Among those three dimensions, Illocutionary act is interpreted rather

identically with Speech Act: language implies actions So far, S.A also meansIllocutionary act and two terms can be used alternatively

“The distinction is necessary for accomplishing communicative

effectiveness, because an individual Locutionary act may have different

Illocutionary forces and require different Perlocutionary act In order to

have the best interpretation and react in the right manner, the H need to

utilize many other factors than just the linguistic expression he hears”

(quoted in Dang Thi Manh, 2005:6) Above all, all S.As (especially performative) depend for their effectiveness

on various facility conditions being satisfied Yule (1996:50) calls these conditionsas: general conditions, preparatory conditions, sincerity conditions, contentconditions, essential conditions And Jackson and Stock Well explicit those asfollow: “The utterance must be said by the right person to the right person, in theright place, at the right time, in the right manner.”(1996:140)

1.1.3 Speech act classifications.

Many linguists try to classify Speech act such as Austin with five categories:

verdictive, exercitive, commisive, behabitive and expositive Among them,

verdictives are typified by the giving of verdict by a judge, a jury, or an arbitrator.Exercitves involve of a decision which either supports or rejects a certain action.Commisives are speech acts which commit the speaker to a certain course of action,e.g a promising or contracting Behabitives are reaction to other people’s behaviors

or attitude to someone’s past actions And expositives include the acts of expositioninvolving the expounding of views, the conducting of arguments…

However, later, some other linguists such as Searl and Leech (1983) criticizethis classification to be rather overlap Then Searl gives another classification system

including five types: assertives (representatives), directives, commissives, expressives, and declaratives

- Assertives (representatives) shows the S’s commitment to the truth ofutterance It sates the fact, assertions, conclusions, and descriptions In the statement:

“His forehead is hot He must be ill” (conclusion), the S expresses his strong belief

to what he says

- Declaratives are sorts of Speech acts that make the world change viautterances, e.g: dismissing, naming, appointing In order to have an appropriatedeclaration, it must be in a specific context or even by a person with certain role insociety:

Eg: Priest: I pronounce you husband and wife.

Jury: I sentence you six months imprisonment.

- Expressives are used to express feelings and attitudes about something such

as an apology, a complaint, a regret

Eg: Your hands are too dirty (a complaint)

I’m sorry for being late (an apology)

- Directives are aimed to get the H to do something such a request, an order, asuggestion, a command

Eg: You must move it out immediately (request)

- Commissives commit S to do something in the future such a promise/ threat

Eg: If you get good marks, I will give you a present.

1.1.4 The speech act of request

According to Searle’s (1979) classification system of speech acts, request falls

into the directives Its function is that the speaker attempts to get the hearer to dosomething by means of what he says or as “an act of asking for something in speech

or writing, especially politely” (in Oxford Advanced Learner’s Dictionary, 1992:768)

Eg: “Won’t you kiss me goodbye” (p 276) - ask for a kiss goodbye.

“Will you leave me alone, will you” (p 295) - ask the H to leave him/her

alone

In request, it is always the requester who directly or indirectly benefits fromthe act at the cost of the requestee and threats his “face.” In day- to- day interactionsbetween the members of a community, each action is performed to maintainsomeone’s “face” and to avoid losing “face.” Since a requester appeals to therequestee’s assistance, he/ she is potentially threatening the requestee’s “negativeface.” The intensity of this threat varies with the level of imposition of the requestedact and the conditions under which the request is made For instance, when someoneasks another the way to the hospital, the requested “matter” is not likely to threatenthe requestee’s face very much Of course, this cannot be the case when a requestinvolves greater imposition or restriction on the requestee’s freedom, such as lendingmoney or giving a lift Therefore, on one hand, to maximize the chance that a listenerwill catch the speaker’s intention in requesting, the speaker should use directives thatare clear and emphatic On the other hand, to maximize the chance that a listener willcomply with the request, the speaker should use directives that are polite or indirect.For example: This room would look a lot better if you dusted it

You have time enough to dust before you go

Didn’t you ask me to remind you to dust this place?

As usual, a request includes 2 main parts, a head act and additional elementswhich consist of Alerter, Perspective and the Modification The Head Act is theminimal unit which is the core of the request sequence Alerter is an element whosefunction is to draw H’s attention to what is uttering, e.g: Mrs, Ms, James, excuseme… Perspective is inferred as a choice made by the S whose want or wish isemphasized or dominant in the request (Song-Mei,1993) and it is coded as follows:

1 Hearer perspective: Can you show me your driving license, please.

2 Speaker perspective: Could I see your driving license, please?

3 Inclusive: Could we swap cars?

4 Impersonal: Can one ask for a little quiet?

(Blum-Kulla et al, 1989:278)

As far as the modification is concerned, it is divided into two terms: internaland external modification Internal modification is defined as elements within theHead Act which can perform as indicating devices affecting pragmatic force Theseelements are downgraders and upgraders However as far as the politeness value ofrequests is concerned, downgraders is regarded And there are various ways torecognize them

Eg: In making a request S majorly reduce pressure on H with politeness marker

“please”

“Please let me see her” (p 371)

Whereas external modification is something happening outside the Head Act.Its function is to mitigate or aggravate the speaker’s request that help to reduce theimposition in H

Eg: “I don’t want to say this but I think I have to It’s time you found yourself a

girl”

(p 114)

By using Disarmer (in above bold sentence) which indicate that the S doesn’twish to make the request but he/she is forced by circumstances to do so, the S try tosoften the impact of the request on the H And in this novel we consider all of thesefactors that occur surround an utterance of request to access politeness strategies

In conclusion, requesting is one kind of speech acts used variously andwidely in human interactions Different requests are made to accomplish differentpurposes, so it seems likely that requests for different purposes might be made using

a different style However, in each request, the S often try to increase his/herpoliteness in various ways

1.2 Politeness and indirectness in request

1.2.1 Theory of politeness

In social interaction, people always try to make their speech as polite aspossible In most of the studies, the politeness has been conceptualized especially as

strategic conflict-avoidance or as strategic construction of cooperative humancommunication Yule (1996) generalized politeness as “the means employed toshow awareness of another person´s face” … and as “the idea of polite socialbehavior or etiquette, within a culture involves certain general principles as beingtactful, generous, modest, sympathetic towards others”(G Yule 1996: 60)

Referring to requests in particular, a native speaker of the language usescertain strategies in order to maintain norms and principles that form part of socialinteraction As Bonn (2000:32) exposes

“Speaking in a polite manner involves being aware of the effect a particular illocutionary force has on one´s addressee, and aggravating or mitigating this force by applying a suitable degree of modification.”

One of these degrees of modification is Politeness Every time a speakerperforms a request, he/she is acquainted with the fact that conversations followparticular conventions and organizational principles Strategies to perform requestsvary according to context and along factors such as social power, role and status.And every speaker has the necessity to be appreciated by others and to feel that nobody

is interfering with him (Renkema,1999: 27)

Fraser (1990) summarizes that there have been 4 major approaches topoliteness:

1) In the pre-pragmatic studies, many scholars had mentioned politeness andconsidered it as a social norm

2) Lakoff (1973, 1989) and Leech (1983) approach politeness from theperspective of conversational maxims, connecting their study with Grice’sconversational maxims

3) Brown & Levinson (1987) study politeness as strategies employed by thespeakers to obtain or to save “face”

4) Fraser (1990) sees politeness from the aspect of conversational contract

(quoted in Dang Thi Manh 2005:7)

Of all those views, the conversational – maxim view of Leech & Lakoff andthe face – management view of Brown & Levinson (1987) are most appreciated andpopularly discussed

1.2.1.1 Politeness principles

With the view of politeness as “a system of interpersonal relations designed

to facilitate interaction by minimizing the potential for conflict and confrontationinherent in all human interchange”, Lakoff (in Green 1989:142) approached threedifferent rules that a speaker might follow in making polite actions

Rule 1: Don't impose (Distance)

Rule 1states that we keep distance from others by not imposing It means thatavoiding mitigating or asking permission or apologizing for making addressee, doinganything which addressee does not want to do In order to keep distance from others,she points out that we tend to use formal expressions or use technical vocabulary toexclude personal emotions This rule is used in situations when participants aregreatly different in power and status, for example a student and the Dean or a factoryworker and the President Thus, this rule takes effect when very formal politeness isrequired In Brown and Levinson's terms, Rule 1 would be equivalent to negativepoliteness

Rule 2: Give options (Deference)

The second principle, deference is characterized by saying things hesitantly,

by not stating one's will clearly or by using euphemisms These mean expressingoneself in such a way that one’s opinion or request can be ignored without beingcontradicted rejected It involves the status difference of the speaker and the hearer,and the speaker yields to the power of the hearer by leaving the option of decision tothe hearer This rule is appropriate in conversations between people who are notdifferent in status or power, but are not socially close, such as a businessman and aclient; i.e when informal politeness is required This strategy is also related tonegative face in Brown and Levinson's sense and involves indirectness

Rule 3: Be friendly (Encourage Feelings of Camaraderie)

The third principle, camaraderie, on the other hand, emphasizes equalitybetween the speaker and the hearer, and it enhances closeness between them Byusing Brown and Levinson's term, this strategy enhances positive face of the speakerand the hearer In this principle, indirectness can be also employed when the speaker

and the hearer understand each other completely and there is no need to talk Rule 3

is used when intimate politeness is required

And another linguist, Leech (1983:16) lists the politeness principle in order to

“minimize the expression of impolite beliefs” with the aim of “explaining the

relationship between sense and force in human conversation” It consists of six maxims:

Maxim I: The Tact Maxim

Tact is the most important kind of politeness in English-speaking societies and it correlates with the directive and commissive in Searl’s categories of speech acts The Tact Maxim runs as follows: “Minimize the expression of beliefs which

imply cost to other; maximize the expression of beliefs which imply benefit to other” Being tactful means S gives an effort to increase benefit to H Whether an

utterance is polite or not can be judged by putting it on a cost-benefit scale

The implied cost to H can be reduced not only by changing the propositionalcontent of the utterance like in the above examples but also by using “minimizers”.The minimizers help to limit the size of imposition on H and thus improve politeness

This strategy has much in common with Lakoff’s politeness rule “Don’t impose”

E.g.: Let me use your computer for a little while

Hang on a second

Just a minute

Maxim II: The Generosity Maxim

The Generosity Maxim states: “Minimize benefit to self; maximize cost to self” (Leech 1983:133)

In comparison with the Tact Maxim, Generosity is a self-centered kind ofpoliteness, whereas Tact is other-centered It appears that the Generosity Maxim is

the reverse of the Tact Maxim: when S means to minimize benefit to self, S also means to minimize cost to other; when cost to self is maximized, benefit to other is

also maximized Therefore, it is likely that both of these maxims will apply in thesame utterance However, there are still cases when only one maxim is observed

without the observation of the other For example, in a piece of advice like: “You can

get them for less than half the price at the market”, only the Tact Maxim applies: it is

meant to be beneficial to H but does not imply any cost to S

Being generous is one kind of politeness; however, it should be appliedwithin certain limitation Over applying this maxim may sound sarcastic and thuslead to communication breakdown

Maxim III: The Approbation Maxim

This maxim states: “Minimize dispraise of other, maximize praise of other”

(Leech 1983:134)

Obviously, saying pleasant things about others is preferable to saying

unpleasant things E.g paying someone a compliment like: “You have a stylish shirt”

is very polite, while saying “You have a dirty shirt” is not In everyday conversation,

however, sometimes we cannot praise others for sake of sincerity and honesty Inorder to be polite in such cases, we can choose either saying nothing or using indirect

or evasive expressions We may say: “His shirt is not very clean” instead of “His shirt is dirty”.

Another thing that S needs to bear in mind when applying this maxim is that

“other” may be H or H’s dear things or people Therefore, it is not polite to ask:

“Are those noisy children yours?” or “Did you cook this smelly dish?”

Maxim IV: The Modesty Maxim

This maxim states: “Minimize praise of self; maximize dispraise of self”

(Leech 1983:136)

This maxim explains why saying “I was very kind to them” is considered to

be less polite than saying: “I didn’t give them enough support” However, the

situation does not stay the same in all cultures The application of the ModestyMaxim varies greatly according to societies and cultures In English speakingcultures, the recipient of a compliment is supposed to show his politeness by sayingthank you, whereas in Oriental cultures like Vietnamese, it is best to deny the praise

E.g A: You have a very nice shirt

B: Thank you (preferred in English-speaking cultures)

A: You have a very nice shirt.

B: Oh, it’s very plain (preferred in Vietnamese culture)

Maxim V: The Agreement Maxim

Jenny Thomas restates this maxim of Leech as follow: “Minimize the

expression of disagreement between self and other; maximize the expression of agreement between self and other”.

According to this maxim, when showing agreement to H, S tends to use adirect or even exaggerating way On the contrary, disagreement is usually expressedindirectly or partially In the following examples, (2) is more polite than (1) but lesspolite than (3):

E.g 1) A: His lecture was very good, wasn’t it?

B: No, I think it was unintelligible

2) A: The film was interesting, wasn’t it?

B: Well, but the end is not really satisfactory

3) A: Isn’t it a marvelous car?

B: Yes, it is

Maxim VI: The Sympathy Maxim

This maxim states that being polite means minimizing antipathy between self and other along with maximizing sympathy between self and other Thus, it is polite

to say a condolence like: “I’m sorry to hear that your cat died” or a congratulation like: “I’m glad to hear that you’ve passed your driving test”

On the other hand, not all the maxims are equally important Maxim I appears

to be a more powerful constraint on conversations than Maxim II, and Maxim III is

of more significance than IV Thus, politeness attaches more importance on other than on self Likewise, politeness towards the addressee is generally more important

than politeness towards a third party

Leech also notices that these maxims should be observed “up to a certainpoint” rather than as absolute rules, and over applying any maxim would lead to thefeeling that S is being insincere or tedious

In six maxims, Leech considers that the “tact maxim” is the most important inpoliteness in English speaking society

1.2.1.2 The face-management view on politeness

1.2.1.2.1 Face

Face is the central concept in Brown &Levinson’s theory of politeness.According to Brown and Levinson (1978: 66) “Face” is “something that isemotionally invested, and that can be lost, maintained, or enhanced and must beconstantly attended to in interaction” Since face refers to the respect that anindividual has for him or herself, and maintaining that "self-esteem" in public or in

private situations as Yule (1996) defined, “face means the public self-image of a

person It refers to that emotional and social sense of self that every one has and expects every one else to recognize” If someone’s face is threatened, that person can

be expected to defend his own face, and in doing this, he’ll threaten the face of theothers Therefore, it is best to maintain each other’s face

Face consists of two related aspects: positive and negative face A person’s

positive face, according to Yule (1996), “is 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”; and “negative face is the need to be independent, to have freedom of action, and not to be imposed on by others” In other words, an

individual’s positive face want is the desire to be liked, approved of, respected andappreciated by others, the desire that his wants be desirable to at least some others

An individual’s negative face want, on the other hand, is the desire not to be impeded

or put upon, to have freedom to act as he chooses, to be treated as a “competent adultmember” of society While positive and negative face wants exist in every individualand are presented in most societies, different cultures tend to place differentemphasis on one of the two aspects of face

Brown and Levinson contend that any speech act has the potential ofthreatening either the face of the speaker or that of the hearer They believe that

conversation is much more concerned with observing politeness expectationsdesigned to ensure the “redress of face than with the exchange of information.” Theyhave proposed a direct relationship between social distance and politeness in such away as to indicate that an increase in social distance will bring about an increase inthe degree of politeness and vice versa The notion of politeness finds meaning when

it is studied in the context of face-threatening acts (or FTA’s) that include positiveand negative ones In other words, some FTA’s threaten negative face and someothers threaten positive face The former includes directives such as commands,requests, advice, invitations, etc The latter, on the other hand, includes criticisms,insults, disagreements, and corrections

1.2.1.2.2 Face threatening acts

As discussed in the previous section, participants of an interaction must attend

to each other’s face If a speaker says something that represents a threat to anotherindividual’s expectation regarding self-image, he is considered as having performed aface threatening act (FTA) FTAs are acts that are likely to damage or threatenothers’ face An illocutionary act may potentially threat H’s negative face if itindicates that S does not intend to avoid impeding H’s freedom of action (e.g anorder, a request), or threat H’s positive face if it indicates that S does not care aboutH’s feelings, wants, hopes, etc (e.g a disapproval, a criticism, an accusation) Notonly may an illocutionary act threat H’s face, but it may also have the potential ofdamaging S’s own face For example, an expression of thanks implies that S accepts

a debt to H, and thus threats S’s negative face, an apology indicates that S regretsdoing a prior FTA so it damages S’s positive face

As usual, we tend to save one another’s face when speaking We can attend topeople’s positive or negative face wants Depending on whose face and what kind offace is threatened in an interaction, we can employ appropriate strategies to perform

an FTA Those strategies are termed as politeness strategies