A study on teacher’s politeness in the EFL classroom

LITERATURE REVIEWThis chapter will present the theoretical issues relevant to the study including the theory of linguistic politeness in general and Brown and Levinson’s theory of polite

VIETNAM NATIONAL UNIVERSITY, HANOI UNIVERSITY OF LANGUAGES AND INTERNATIONAL STUDIES FACULTY OF

POST-GRADUATE STUDIES

TRAN HOANG ANH

A STUDY ON TEACHER’S POLITENESS STRATEGIES

IN THE EFL CLASSROOM

(Nghiên cứu chiến lược lịch sự của giáo viên

trong lớp học tiếng Anh)

MA MAJOR THESIS

Major: English LinguisticsCode: 8220201.01

Hanoi, 2019

VIETNAM NATIONAL UNIVERSITY, HANOI UNIVERSITY OF LANGUAGES AND INTERNATIONAL STUDIES FACULTY OF

POST-GRADUATE STUDIES

TRAN HOANG ANH

A STUDY ON TEACHER’S POLITENESS STRATEGIES

IN THE EFL CLASSROOM

(Nghiên cứu chiến lược lịch sự của giáo viên

trong lớp học tiếng Anh)

I hereby state that this thesis is my own work and that, to the best of myknowledge and belief, it contains no material that has been accepted orsubmitted for the award of any other degree or diploma

I also declare that, to the best of my knowledge and belief, this thesiscontains no material previously published or written by any other personexcept where due reference is made in the text of the thesis

I would first like to express my deepest gratitude to my thesis supervisor,Prof Nguyen Hoa, for his precious support and helpful instructions on theconstruction of my study, which have always been the decisive factors in thecompletion of this paper The door to Prof Nguyen Hoa’s office was alwaysopen whenever I ran into a trouble spot or had a question about my research orwriting He consistently allowed this paper to be my own work, but steered me

in the right the direction whenever he thought I needed it

My sincere gratitude is also addressed to Dr Huynh Anh Tuan, Dean ofFaculty of Post-graduate studies, and Dr Hoang Thi Hanh, lecturer in Faculty

of Linguistics and Cultures of English speaking countries, ULIS, VNU, fortheir sharing expertise, and critical comments for my thesis proposal

Thirdly, I would like to send our heartfelt thanks to the teacher and thestudents at FELTE, ULIS for their participation in the study Without theircooperation and input, the study could not have been successfully conducted

Furthermore, I would also like to express my appreciation to my friend,Huy Hoang, for his spending time helping me proofread my thesis

Finally, I must express my very profound gratitude to my family and

my friends for providing me with unfailing support and continuousencouragement throughout my years of study and through the process ofresearching and writing this thesis This accomplishment would not have beenpossible without them

This interpretive-qualitative research aimed at investigating a teacher’spoliteness strategies used in the classroom, how they were recognizedlinguistically through her utterances, and her students’ perception of suchlanguage The data were collected through non-participatory observations andsemi-structured interviews The data analysis was based on Brown andLevinson’s politeness theory (1987) The results revealed that the teacheremployed certain types of politeness in her teaching English, namely, bald-onrecord strategy, positive politeness and negative politeness As such, theteacher created a positive teacher-student interaction and supportive learningatmosphere Furthermore, the findings showed that most students found theirteacher’s utterances appropriate and effective for their learning process.Nevertheless, it came to the researcher’s realization that Brown andLevinson’s politeness theory could not capture all aspects of Vietnamesepeople’s politeness Cross-cultural communication was taken intoconsideration during the data analysis, accordingly, for better interpretation ofthe occurrence emerging in the classroom

TABLE OF CONTENT

DECLARATION i

ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS ii

ABSTRACT iii

LIST OF ABBREVIATIONS vi

LIST OF TABLES AND FIGURES vii

CHAPTER 1 INTRODUCTION 1

1.1 Background to the study 1

1.2 Rationale to the study 2

1.3 Significance of the study 4

1.4 Scope of the study 5

1.5 Organization of the thesis 5

CHAPTER 2 LITERATURE REVIEW 7

2.1 Overview of Politeness 7

2.2 Root of Linguistic Politeness 8

2.3 Robin Lakoff and Politeness 12

2.4 Brown and Levinson’s politeness strategies 13

2.4.1 Bald-on-Record 15

2.4.2 Positive Politeness Strategy 16

2.4.3 Negative Politeness Strategy 18

2.4.4 Off-Record Strategy 20

2.4 Critique of Brown and Levinson’s politeness strategies 24

2.5 Teacher’s language in EFL classroom 26

2.6 Concept of perception 27

2.7 Related studies on Teacher’s politeness strategies in EFL classroom 29

CHAPTER 3 METHODOLGY 33

3.1 Research design 33

3.2 Participants 34

3.3 Data collection instruments 34

3.3.1 Addressing research question 1 34

3.3.2 Addressing research question 2 37

3.4 Data analysis 38

3.4.1 Data Reduction 41

3.4.2 Data display 41

3.4.4 Conclusion drawing and verification 42

CHAPTER 4 FINDINGS AND DISCUSSION 42

4.1 Findings 44

4.1.1 Teacher’s politeness strategy in EFL classroom 44

4.1.2 Students’ perception on teacher’s utterances in the EFL classroom 61

4.1.3 Other findings 63

4.2 Discussion 67

CHAPTER 5 CONCLUSION 73

5.1 Summary of the findings 73

5.2 Implications of the findings 75

5.3 Limitations of the study 77

5.4 Suggestions for further study 77

REFERENCES 78 APPENDICES I APPENDIX 1 I APPENDIX 2 XXII

Relative powerabsolute rating of impositionSpeaker

LIST OF TABLES AND FIGURES

Figure 2.1 Strategies for performing FTAs (Brown & Levinson, 1987) 15

Table 2.1 Summary of Brown and Levinson’ politeness strategies (1987) Error! Bookmark not defined. Table 3.1 Observation timeline 35

Table 3.2 Coding scheme for the types of politeness strategies 36

Table 3.3 Coding scheme for the types of sub-politeness strategies 36

Table 3.4 Unit of data analysis 41 Figure 4.1 Number of teacher’s politeness strategies used in the classroom.44

CHAPTER 1 INTRODUCTION

This chapter introduces the research area and outlines the background and the rationale for the current study It briefly review teacher’s language in EFL classroom and politeness strategy applied in such context The chapter subsequently describes the aims, scopes and significance of the present study, followed by the organization of the research.

1.1 Background to the study

During the last six years teaching English for freshmen andsophomores, my colleagues and I have witnessed a rather disturbingphenomenon in which intermediate and upper-intermediate L2 students wereoften reluctant to raise their voice in English in the classroom In retrospect, Ifound myself in the same situation as my students Were it not for theteacher’s encouragement or acknowledgement of my ideas, I would not havehad the willingness to raise my voice in class “Teacher’s encouragementswould probably be the solution for my students”, I thought I then took intoconsideration this experience when planning the lessons I spent much timethinking about the language I would use in class, so that through my saying, Icould encourage and motivate my students to speak more Still, I felt quitepuzzled Much as I planned the language used beforehand, I failed to stir upthe class atmosphere sometimes Why the students show little interest inlearning English in class? Is there anything a teacher can do, besides givingencouragements, to stimulate the student’s interest?

It comes to my realization that in a specific language learningenvironment, classroom activities hosted (not controlled, but guided) byteacher helps shape a special interpersonal relationship This is similar to any

other social relationship To promote the effective communication as well as

to develop good relationship or togetherness, being polite could be seen as theone of the core elements in social interactions The teachers, hence, probablyshould take into consideration “how to speak” and “what to speak” so thatthey could sound more polite in the classroom For instance, utterances such

as please, would you and thank you are regarded as polite in teacher-students interaction Being aware of how politeness strategies are employed in the

teacher’s utterances, accordingly, is also of significance

1.2 Rationale to the study

Teacher’s language in EFL classroom has widely been considered themost important factor affecting the teaching-learning process It is because theteacher’s language is not only for classroom management but also for the process

of students’ knowledge acquisition (Nunan, 1991) There are several activitiesuniversally conducted by the teacher in the classroom, such as giving thestudent’s instructions, motivating the class, and evaluating the students Moreimportantly, teacher’s language in the classroom is also the major medium forL2 learners to understand the knowledge That is to say, in EFL classroom,English is not only the target for students to learn but also the medium for theteaching-learning process English used in L2 classroom is not only the goal ofthe lesson but also how this goal is achieved, in other words (Richards &Lockhart, 1996) ELF teachers, thus, play the role as the models for theirstudents to imitate Krashen (1995) asserts that if the teacher’s language is usedproperly in EFL classroom, it would pave the way for the best input for thelearner’s language learning process The appropriateness of the teacher’slanguage in classroom context could be defined as “how the teacher speaks” tomake students feel comfortable, i.e they do not feel offended by the teacher’sutterances As such, the teacher’s way of speaking should not cause a

threat to the student’s face According to Brown and Levinson (1987) tomitigate face-threat, further, create good teacher-students interaction, theteacher is supposed to be polite in the classroom Politeness is a commonsocial phenomenon and a classroom is one society in which communicationoccurs between teachers and students Thus, politeness should also be a moralcode in the teaching-learning process In respect to language, politenesscorresponds to the use of indirect speech acts or using certain lexical items

such as “please”, “sorry”, and “thank you” (Watts, 2003) That is to say, teachers’ politeness in the EFL classroom can be recognized linguistically

through the structural form and communication function of the utterances,especially in the event of teacher-student interaction

A previous study by Jiang (2010) on Teacher’s politeness in EFL class(a case study of Chinese EFL learners) concluded that politeness does exist inEFL classroom Furthermore, it was alos concluded that teacher’s politenessstrategies did contribute to both teaching and learning Jiang, through hisanalysis, claimed that politeness in the classroom contributed to the effectiverelationship, created a friendly and lively atmosphere and will affect themutual understanding and the relationship between student and teacher Asimilar conclusion was reached by the study conducted by Peng, Cai, and Xie(2014) on college teacher’s politeness strategies in EFL classroom Theauthors asserted that teachers in EFL classroom are highly aware of politenessstrategies and often used negative politeness and positive politeness as theirstrategies in the classroom Teachers preferred to use positive politeness as ithelped the students to develop their self-image

In Vietnam, there has been little research investigating on teacher’sutterances in EFL classroom, let alone teacher’s politeness strategies in askingfor student’s clarification That is to say, teacher’s use of politeness strategies aswell as its influence on the teaching-learning process has not been dealt with

in-depth in Vietnam, especially in the university context Furthermore, to myobservation, freshmen and sophomores in my faculty tend to show moreinterest and enthusiasm in learning English with young teachers Such aphenomenon has posed a question of how young teachers employ politenessstrategies, thus, they could establish a close relationship with students in theEFL class.

1.3 Aims of the study

With a view to addressing the aforementioned gaps, this study aims atinvestigating how politeness strategies employed by one Vietnamese teachercan be a variable that enhances teacher-student interaction, further, improvesL2 students’ learning in EFL classroom

Considering the objectives of the research, the research would seek theanswer for these three following research questions:

Question 1: What politeness strategies are used by the teacher in the EFL classroom?

Question 2: What are the students’ perceptions of the effectiveness and appropriateness of their teacher’s utterances in EFL classroom?

1.4 Significance of the study

When the thesis is completed, it would be beneficial to teachers and L2leaners It also documents several key contributions made to the research body ofpoliteness strategy used in EFL classroom To be more specific, the results ofthis research should be seen as a useful tool for L2 teachers to reflect their use ofpoliteness strategies in the classroom As a result, EFL teachers would be moreaware of their use of politeness strategies in their classroom and there would besome modification in teachers’ language used in the classroom As aconsequence, the teacher could improve teacher-student interaction in EFLclassroom, and the teaching-learning process would be more efficient

Secondly, the researcher hopes this study would be a useful source ofreference for other studies in linguistics and pragmatic fields, further, it wouldenrich the literature regarding politeness strategies used in EFL classroom.

1.5 Scope of the study

This study focuses on teacher’s politeness strategies in the EFLclassroom, in which both the teacher and the students are Vietnamese withVietnamese culture That is to say, both the teacher and the students are non-native speakers and they use English as a medium for the teaching-learningprocess as well as for their interaction in the classroom context It should benoted that Vietnamese used in the classroom is also studied as thetranslanguaging resources Besides, politeness can also be expressed non-verbally, however, only the linguistic politeness will be analyzed anddiscussed in this current study Moreover, L2 students’ perceptions of theirteacher’s utterances during the teaching-learning process would also be thesubject for discussion

1.6 Organization of the thesis

Chapter 1 – Introduction – presents a general statement about the study andthe objectives that the study would want to achieve

Chapter 2 – Literature Review – gives the background of the study, consisting

of definitions and descriptions of key concepts and related studies, both insideand outside of Vietnam

Chapter 3 – Methodology – gives descriptions of the participants and thesettings for the study as well as the procedure employed to carry out theresearch

Chapter 4 – Results – presents the findings together with in-depth analysisand discussion of the findings – gives answers to the two research questionsproposed in the introduction chapter.

Chapter 5 – Conclusion – summarizes the main issues discussed in the study,the limitations of the research and proposes some recommendations andsuggestions for further studies

References and Appendices come at the end of the study.

CHAPTER 2 LITERATURE REVIEW

This chapter will present the theoretical issues relevant to the study including the theory of linguistic politeness in general and Brown and Levinson’s theory of politeness strategy in particular This will be followed by the framework for the study A critical appraisal of the previous studies related

to the current research area will also be presented at the end of the chapter.

2.1 Overview of Politeness

The English lexeme 'polite' lies in the Latin past participle form politus, meaning 'polished' The same is true for the French term poli, which is the past participle of the verb polir, meaning to polish Thus, it is understood that

“The etymological roots of the terms 'polite' and 'politeness' in English are

(thus) to be found in notions of cleanliness, a smooth surface and polished brightness which can reflect the image of the beholder” (Watts, 2003, p33).

The concept Politeness has been studied since the 1960s from theperspectives of many scientific fields – psychology, philosophy, sociology,ethnomethodology, social anthropology and linguistics This thesis will befocused on the most prominent one, i.e the linguistic point of view Sincepoliteness can be understood as an instrument, it is logical that the research ofpoliteness is usually classified as a part of linguistic pragmatics, a disciplinethat studies language from the functional point of view and assesses theappropriateness of use of certain elements of speech in particularcommunication

The pragmatic turn in linguistics dates back to the second half of the

1960s Yule (1996, p4) follows Morris in describing pragmatics as “the study

of the relationships between linguistic forms and the users of those forms.”

While syntax is the study of how linguistic forms are arranged in asequence, and semantics examines the relationship between linguistic formsand entities of the world, pragmatics is concerned with the notion ofimplicature, i.e implied meaning as opposed to the mere lexical meaningexpressed Pragmatics is the study of speaker meaning, or contextualmeaning, and dwells upon how more than what is said is expressed and theexpression of relative distance in a natural language setting (Yule, 1996, p.3).

A large body of linguistic research has moved from language disciplines,focusing on competence, to parole disciplines, emphasizing languageperformance The parole perspective brings context into linguistics, i.e therelationship between speaker and addressee, illocutionary effect, topic andmotivation of communication, and due to this every text or discourse isconsidered a unique event of perception and creation

2.2 Root of Linguistic Politeness

We should first mention the theories of the “fathers of pragmatics” in brief

to see the framework of politeness concepts that will be analyzed later on in thetext First and foremost, it is John Austin, the author of theory of speech acts and

whose lecture series named How to Do Things with Words (1962) reveals that we

not only say things, but we also do things when using language (John, 1962) Aspeech act is, therefore, an utterance, functioning as a unit of communication.Theoretically, there are three components in a speech act: the Locutionary Act(producing the actual meaningful utterance), the Illocutionary Act (the intendedsignificance and socially valid verbal actions, such as ordering, warning,undertaking etc.) and the Perlocutionary Act (the actual effect of the utterance, orwhat we achieve with an utterance, such as convincing, persuading, deterring,surprising, misleading) The Illocutionary Act determines a certain illocutionaryforce When the illocutionary force is

different from the Locutionary Act, this situation is called an indirect speechact A typical example of an indirect speech act is a request formulated as a

question: Could you open the window?

Building upon Austin’s work, Searle (1965) argues that “A theory of

language is a part of theory of action” This could be understood as, since

language is intentional behavior, it should be treated like a form of action.Moreover, to understand language one must understand the speaker’sintention as when one speaks, one performs an act Searle further proposes

that all acts fall into five main types: representatives, directives, commissives,

expressives, and declarations.

The aim of the speaker, therefore, is to make the addressee understandhis/her intention In other words, to convey the illocutionary force, thespeaker can use intonation, punctuation, and verb performatives (verbs, such

as promise, invite, apologize, and forbid, that explicitly convey the kind ofspeech act being performed), or the illocutionary force can be assigned to theinterpretation itself Sometimes the type of the Illocutionary Act comes from

the context of a communication, for example I am here by car as a reply to I

missed my bus is an offer Due to these hints, the act is called Illocutionary,

because the word illocutionary derives from the word illoquor, meaningunexpressed (Grepl & Karlík, 1998, p 419)

Furthermore, Searle (1969) specifies the conditions that eachIllocutionary Act must fulfill He divides these conditions into three types:preparatory conditions (e.g a preparatory condition for reprehension is thefact that the addressee has done something wrong), sincerity conditions (thesubjective standpoint of a speaker, e.g a sincerity condition of a question isthe speaker’s desire to learn something new), and essential conditions (theaim of the speaker, e.g the essential condition of an announcement is toinform the addressee about the content)

The basis of the majority of linguistic theories on politeness could betraced back to the Cooperative Principle of H.P Grice His theory can besuccinctly illustrated by the following sentence, taken from his essay Logic

and Conversation: Make your conversational contribution such as is required,

at the stage at which it occurs, by the accepted purpose or direction of the talk exchange in which you are engaged (Grice, 1975, p45) Grice further

suggests four conversational maxims under the Cooperative Principle which

are prerequisites for a successful and effective communication (Grice, 1989,p28-29):

The Cooperative Principle (abbreviated to CP)

QUANTITY: Give the right amount of information: i.e.

1 Make your contribution as informative as required.

2 Do not make your contribution more informative than is required QUALITY: Try to make your contribution the one that is true: i.e.

1 Do not say what you believe to be false.

2 Do not say that for which you lack adequate evidence RELATION: Be

relevant.

MANNER: Be perspicuous; i.e.

1 Avoid obscurity of expression.

3 Be brief (avoid unnecessary prolixity).

4 Be orderly (Grice, 1989, p28-29)

The floating of these maxims can lead to un-cohesive communication

or misunderstanding Even though the CP is always valid, participants of aconversation often break its principles, for which they usually have a reason.When a speaker breaks one of the maxims, the addressee starts thinking of thereasons the speaker might have had S/he starts adding the missing pieces of aconversation that were not explicitly mentioned, but are still somehow present

in the utterance, and the speaker wishes the addressee to understand them

These implicit parts of utterances are called conversational implicatures “The

presence of a conversational implicature must be capable of being worked out” (Grice 1970, p50) One of the reasons for breaking a maxim can also be

politeness An example of this is when a wife tells her husband, “The Novák

family are coming over for dinner tonight” and the husband replies, “It will

be nice to see Jana” The husband’s reply floats the maxim of quantity, but is

more polite than explicitly saying that he does not like Mr Novák Moreover,

Grice himself maintains that some maxims are more important than others,and he also acknowledges that these maxims are often violated Nevertheless,they seem to form the basis of any rational conversation Grice also points outthat his list of maxims is not final, and identifies other important maxims, e.g

“Be polite”:

There are, of course, all sorts of other maxims (aesthetic, social, or moral in character) such as ‘Be polite’ that are normally observed by participants in talk exchanges and these may also generate nonconventional (i.e.

conversational) implicatures (Grice 1991,p.308)

These words have inspired many linguists who have elaborated on Grice’ssuggestion for a certain politeness maxim Names connected with linguisticpoliteness are Robin Lakoff, Geoffrey Leech and Brown and Levinson andWatts There are other linguists who deal with politeness (e.g Fraser and Nolen,Eelen, Scollon and Scollon), but the theories of Lakoff, Leech, Brown andLevinson and Watts are generally considered the most influential ones.Accordingly, this thesis will predominantly draw on on the latter

The term ‘linguistic politeness’ refers to strategies that aim at free communication, especially Leech’s Politeness Principle, and also at theself-realization and the self-defense of a speaker in a conversation Thetheories of the above-mentioned linguists have shaped the perception oflinguistic politeness, and they will provide a framework for the research in thepractical part of this thesis

conflict-2.3 Robin Lakoff and Politeness

The idea that politeness can be studied and interpreted as adhering tocertain pragmatic rules was first worded by Robin Lakoff in her essay TheLogic of Politeness: or, Minding your p’s and q’s (1973, p.45) Here, Lakoff

defines politeness as forms of behavior that have been “developed in societies

in order to reduce friction in personal interaction.” According to her,

pragmatic competence consists of a set of sub-maxims, namely:

1- Be clear and 2- Be polite

The continuity of Grice’s thought is clear, especially in the fact that Grice’sCooperative Principle in a way overlaps with Lakoff’s first rule Again, thereare many situations in which the requirement of the first maxim (be clear) ismore important than the other one (be polite), and vice versa Lakoff (1973,p297-298) clarifies this relationship by asserting that,

Politeness usually supersedes It is considered more important in a conversation to avoid offense than to achieve clarity This makes sense, since in most informal conversations, actual communication of important ideas is secondary to merely reaffirming and strengthening a relationship.

Lakoff (1973) characterizes politeness from the perspective of the speaker, identifying three sub-types

1 formal (or impersonal) politeness (Don't impose/remain aloof).

2 informal politeness – hesitancy (Give options)

3 intimate politeness – equality and camaraderie (make A feel good – be friendly/act as though you and the addressee were equal)

These strategies (distance, deference and camaraderie) are usuallyapplied in different circumstances When the relationship between the speakerand addressee is not close, formal politeness should prevail, and the speakermust conform to social etiquette The speaker should be indirect, and incertain situations can be considered reserved

According to Lakoff (1973), informal politeness is typical of women Aspeaker using strategies of informal politeness can sound indecisive, becauses/he leaves the decision to the addressee.

In brief, Lakoff views politeness both as a way to avoid giving offenseand as a lubricator in communication that should maintain harmoniousrelations between the speaker and the hearer This view, accordingly, wouldfunction as the basis for the researcher to analyze as well as compare differentpoliteness models so that the most suitable one would be chosen

2.4 Brown and Levinson’s politeness strategies

One of the most influential, detailed and well-known models oflinguistic politeness is that of Penelope Brown and Stephen C Levinson in

1987 It is said that “perhaps the most thorough treatment of the concept of

politeness is that of Brown and Levinson” (Fasold, 2000, p.160) Their book,

Politeness: Some Universals in Language Usage, was first published in 1978;

however, we usually cite the second edition from 1987, where the authorsanswer various objections to their theory Brown and Levinson were not onlyinspired by Grice’s CP and Austin’s and Searle’s theory of speech acts, butalso by Erving Goffman’s conception of face (1967)

Goffman understands the construct of face in accordance with certain

English folk terms, like losing face or saving face, and defines face as “an

image of self - delineated in terms of approved social attributes- albeit an image that others may share” (Goffman, 1967, p.5).

Face is the public self-image of a person Thus, every participant of aconversation has a face, and everyone’s task in a conversation is to maintainand protect his or her face within the interlocutors However, face can bethreatened in specific situations and such threats are called face-threateningacts (FTAs)

The concept of face was borrowed from Goffman by Brown andLevinson (1987), and used in their Model Person, who can be defined by thefollowing three characteristics: this person speaks a natural language, isrational (and therefore capable of means-end reasoning) and has a face.Consequently, this Model Person is used by Brown and Levinson to illustratethe connection between the use of language and politeness.

In their theory, face is two dimensional – they work with the concepts

of positive and negative face However, the terms positive and negative arenot subject to evaluation; we cannot consider the positive face to be betterthan the negative one The terms are meant in a directional way (vectorial),

i.e the positive face metaphorically aims outwards and the negative inwards,

into the inner world of the speaker On the one hand, Brown and Levinson

(1987, p.61) define the positive face as “the positive consistent self-image of

‘personality’ (crucially including the desire that this self-image be appreciated and approved of) claimed by interactants.” On the other hand, the

negative face is defined as our wish not to be imposed on by others and to be

allowed to go about our business unimpeded with our rights to free and determined action intact To sum up, the negative face is the desire of every

self-‘competent adult member’ for his/her actions to be unimpeded by others Thepositive face is the wish of every member for his/her wants to be desirable to

at least some others It should be the interest of all participants in aconversation to enable each other to save their face, minimizing face-threatening acts As Watts describes it (2003, p.86)

politeness strategies will therefore be those which aim (a) at supporting or enhancing the addressee’s positive face (positive politeness) and (b) at avoiding transgression of the addressee’s freedom of action and freedom from imposition (negative face).

Positive politeness serves to make the hearer feel liked and approved of; whereas negative politeness serves to minimize the imposition on the hearer

Figure 2.1 Strategies for performing FTAs (Brown & Levinson, 1987)

Followings are more explanation of each politeness strategy according

to Brown and Levinson’s theory

2.4.1 Bald-on-Record

In the Bald-on record strategy, the speaker does nothing to minimizethreats to the hearer’s face The reason for its usage is that whenever aspeaker wants to do the FTA with maximum efficiency more than he or shewants to satisfy the hearer’s face, even to any degree, the Bald-on recordstrategy chosen according to Brown and Levinson (1987, 1895)

There are two kinds of bald-on record as follows

A Non-minimization of the face threat

Non-minimization of the face threat is the standard uses of Bald-onrecord usage where other demands override face concerns S and H both agreethat the relevance of face demands may be suspended in the interest ofurgency or efficiency This strategy is most utilized in situations where thespeaker has a close relationship with the audience

B FTA- oriented bald-on record usage

The theory of Brown and Levinson (1987) explains the use of Bald-onrecord is actually face-oriented In other words, it is used where face involves

mutual orientation, so that each participant attempts to foresee what the otherparticipant is attempting to foresee For example, in certain circumstances, it

is reasonable for S to assume that H will be especially worried with H’spotential violation or S’s maintaining

2.4.2 Positive Politeness Strategy

Brown and Levinson (1987, p.70) define positive politeness as thestrategy oriented by the speaker towards the positive face or the positive self-image of the hearer The speaker can satisfy the addressee’s positive facewants by emphasizing that speaker wants what the hearer’s wants Positivepoliteness techniques are usable not only for FTA redress, but as kind ofsocial accelerator that indicates the speaker’s wants to come closer to hearer

Positive politeness strategy is classified into 15 sub-strategies asfollows (Brown & Levinson, 1987, p103-129)

1) Strategy 1: Notice, attend to Hearer (his interest, wants, needs, goods) The strategy suggests that S (speaker) should take notice as aspects of

hearer’s condition of the listener (the changes can also note, commonownership, and everything that listeners want to be noticed and recognized bythe speakers)

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

This strategy is often done with exaggerated intonation, stress, and otheraspects of prosodic, as well as intensifying modifiers

3) Strategy 3: intensify interest to H

Another way for S to share his wants with the H is to intensify the

interest of S’s own contributions to the conversation, by “making good story”.

4) Strategy 4: use in-group identity markers (addressed forms, dialect, jargon or slang)

This strategy is done by using innumerable address forms to indicate that

S and H belong to some set of persons who share specific wants In conveying

of group member, the speaker can use terms such as mac, mate, buddy, pal,

honey, dear, duckie, luv, babe, Mom, blondie, brother, sister, cutie, sweetheart, guys, fella, etc In Vietnamese, the terms could be các bạn, mình, các em, em yêu, cục cưng, etc.

5) Strategy 5: seek agreement (safe topics, repetition)

Another way to save H’s positive face is to seek ways in which it is

possible for S to agree with him Seek agreement may be stressed by raising

weather topics and repeating what the preceding speaker has said in a

conversation (Brown & Levinson, 1987, p112)

6) Strategy 6: avoid disagreement

The desire to agree or appear to agree with H leads to mechanisms forpretending to agree Using this strategy, speakers may go in twisting theirutterances to agree or to hide disagreement There are four ways to avoiddisagreement, namely, by means of token agreement, pseudo agreement,white lies, and hedging opinion

7) Strategy 7: presuppose/ raise/ assert common ground

This strategy includes three sub-strategies, namely, gossip or small talk,point of view operations and presupposition manipulation

10) Strategy 10: Offer, promise

This strategy is done to redress the potential threat of some FTAs Speaker may claim that whatever H wants, S wants for him and will help to obtain.

11) Strategy 11: Be optimistic

This strategy assumes that H will cooperate with S because it will be in their mutual shared interest

12) Strategy 12: Include both S and H in the activity

This is done by using an inclusive “we” form, when S really means

“you” or “me” The use of let’s is an inclusive form of “we” For example,

“Let us stop for a bit”.

13) Strategy 13: give or ask for reasons

Another aspect of including H in the activities demanding reasons “why

not” and assuming that H has no good reasons to not help For example, “I know there is no one in your home Why not stay here tonight?” Since the

speaker thinks that there is no one in the hearer’s home, the speaker can make

a direct utterance as “Why not stay here tonight?” However, the speaker

decides to give the suggestion indirectly by asking the reason of why thehearer does not stay at his or her home Therefore, the speaker has satisfiedthe hearer’s positive face

14) Strategy 14: Assume or assert reciprocity

The strategy is done by giving evidence of reciprocal right or

obligations obtaining between S and H Therefore, the speaker can say “I'll do

X for you if you do Y for me,” or “I did X for you last week, so you do Y for

me this week” (or vice versa) For example, “I washed the dishes yesterday so you do that for me today”.

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

To satisfy H’s positive face, S may do this classic strategy That is togive gift not only tangible gifts but also human-relation wants such to be

liked, to be admired For example, “I'm sorry for what happened to you

yesterday.” 2.4.3 Negative Politeness Strategy

Brown and Levinson (1987, p.129) assert that negative politeness strategy

is regressive action addressed to the addressee’s negative face: his want to havehis freedom of action unhindered and his attention unimpeded Unlike positivepoliteness which is free ranging, negative politeness is specific

and focused; it performs the function of minimizing the particular imposition

that the FTA unavoidably effects.

Brown and Levinson (1987, p132-210) also classify negative politenessstrategy into 10 strategies:

1) Strategy 1: Be conventionally indirect

This strategy is a way out for two circumstances which conflict witheach other, namely the desire to not press the speaker on one side and a desire

to proclaim the message directly without rambling and obviously meaning theother side Therefore, the strategy is conducted by using phrases andsentences that have contextually unambiguous meanings that are differentfrom their literal meaning

2) Strategy 2: Questioning and hedging

Hedge may be functioned to soften command and turn it into a politesuggestion

3) Strategy 3: be pessimistic

This strategy gives redress to H’s negative face by explicitly expressingdoubt that the conditions for the appropriateness of S’s speech act obtain.4) Strategy 4: Minimize the imposition

One way of defusing the FTA is to indicate that the intrinsicseriousness of the imposition is not great, though it is

5) Strategy 5: Give deference

According to Brown and Levinson (1987, p.187), there are two sides ofdeference realization First, the speaker humbles and abases himself andanother Second, speaker raises H (pays him positive face/ satisfies H’s wants

to be treated as superior) From these two ways, the speaker is giving respectactually

6) Strategy 6: Apologize

By apologizing for doing an FTA, the speaker can indicate his reluctance

to impinge upon H’s negative face and thereby, redress that impingement

This strategy can be found through the utterances which a) recognizethe pressures and distractions provided; b) show reluctance and use of certainexpressions; c) deliver the reason that force the speaker for doing that; and d)beg forgiveness and beg the speakers delay the FTA from the utterance aredelivered

7) Strategy 7: Impersonalize S and H

This strategy avoids the use of word “I” and “You”, doubling thepronoun “I” becomes “we” replace the word “you” with “sir” or “ma’am”.8) Strategy 8: State the FTA as a general rule

One way of dissociating S and H from particular imposition in the FTA

is to state the FTA as an instance of some general social rule, regulation, orobligation This strategy can be realized through the speaker’s not usingpronouns

9) Strategy 9: Nominalize

This strategy is done by changing a word to be noun The more nounsare used in an expression, the more removed an actor from doing or beingsomething and the less dangerous an FTA seems to be

10) Strategy 10: Go on record as incurring a debt, or as not indebting

It is done by claiming S’s indebtness to H or by disclaiming anyindebtness of H, so that S can redress an FTA

2.4.4 Off-Record Strategy

The final politeness strategy outlined by Brown and Levinson is theindirect or off-record strategy Brown and Levinson (1987, p.211) state that off-record utterance are essentially indirect uses of language: to construct an offrecord utterance one says something that is either more general (contains less

information in the sense that it rules out for possible states of affair) oractually different from what one means (intends to be understood) That is tosay, off record strategy is a communicative action which has certain purposes.Therefore, when the speaker is doing off record, it does not mean he/she justgives an information but really intends to do something.

Moreover, the language that use in off record strategy is indirectlanguage When the speaker uses this strategy, he would only give a clue, sothe hearer must have to interpret it self The following is explanation of fifteenoff record strategy according to Brown and Levinson theory (1987, p213-227) 1) Strategy 1: Give hints

This strategy is used by the speaker to implicitly give a piece ofinformation to the hearer The information may be a “demand” or “request”from the speaker to the hearer to do something

2) Strategy 2: Give association clues

This strategy is conducted by mentioning something associated with theact required of H either by precedent in S-H’s experience or by mutualknowledge irrespective of their interaction experience

3) Strategy 3: Presuppose

This strategy is done through an utterance which is relevant to thecontext The speaker then invites H to search for an interpretation of thepossible relevance just at the level of its presuppositions

6) Strategy 6: Use tautologies

Tautology means an obvious statement in which the speakerencourages the hearer to look for an informative interpretation of the non-informative utterance

7) Strategy 7: Use contradictions

The strategy is done by stating to contradict things By doing so, Smakes it appear that he cannot be telling the truth, thus S encourages H tolook for an interpretation that reconciles the two contradictory propositions.8) Strategy 8: Be ironic

To be ironic means by saying the opposite of what is means In sodoing, S can indirectly convey his intended meaning, if there are clues(prosodic, kinesics, or textual) which relevant to the context

9) Strategy 9: Use metaphor

Brown and Levinson (1987, p222) state that, “The speaker uses a word

that described a first subject as being equal to a second subject” The use of

metaphor is usually on record, but there is possibility that the connotations ofthe metaphor uttered by S may be off record

10) Strategy 10 Use rhetorical questions

The speaker uses a linguistic expression used to make a request orinformation or else itself made by such an expression The use of this strategy

is by raising questions that leave their answers hanging in the air orimplicated to do FTAs

11) Strategy 11: Be ambiguous

When the speaker produces an ambiguous utterance it means the speaker istrying to minimize the threat of FTA, because the utterance has more onepossible meaning The term “ambiguity” includes the ambiguity between theliteral meaning of an utterance and any possible implicatures inside

12) Strategy 12: Be vague

According to Brown and Levinson (1987, p226), “The speaker may go

off record with FTA by being vague about who the object of the FTA or what the offence is” This strategy is conducted by being vague about who the

object of the FTA is, or what the offence is.

13) Strategy 13: Over-generalize

This strategy is done by saying utterance that may leave the objectvaguely off record, and then H has the choice of deciding whether the generalrule applies to him The speaker did not give clear information by sayingsomething general

14) Strategy 14: Displace H

Brown and Levinson (1987, p 226) state, “S may go off record as to who the target for his FTA is, or he may pretend to address the FTA to someone whom it wouldn’t threaten and hope that the real target will see that the FTA

is aimed to him.”

15) Strategy 15: Be incomplete, use ellipsis

The strategy is done by leaving the implicature “hanging in the air”,without rhetorical question

Choice of politeness strategy

When performing an FTA, the speaker does not arbitrarily choose a strategy,but is restricted by a set of rules Brown and Levinson (1987, p 73) list thestrategies according to the degree in which they serve to save face:

(Brown & Levinson 1987, p 73) Positive politeness is regarded as moredangerous than negative politeness since it is based on emphasizing closeness,and the speaker has thus to take the risk of expressing his belief that thereexists a friendly relationship between the participants.

It could seem that the safest choice would be to always use the record strategy However, there are several reasons why speakers use otherstrategies as well The factors that cause speakers to use less safe strategiesgiven by Brown and Levinson (1987, p 74) can be summed up this way:

off-1 Off-record strategy is ambiguous and since the hearer must infermeaning enclosed in the violation of Gricean maxims, it requires more effort andtime than other strategies

2 If a speaker chooses strategy that is usually used for FTAs with higherrisk, the hearer could assume that the threat is higher than it in fact is

This would work against the speaker´s intention to minimize the risk

In order to choose the best fitting strategy, it is therefore important todetermine the amount of threat included in the FTA Brown and Levinson(1987, p 74) argue that the evaluation of the seriousness of an FTA depends

on the following sociological variables:

1 social distance of the speaker and the hearer

2 relative power of the speaker and the hearer

3 absolute ranking of the impositions in a certain culture

It has to be noted that these variables do not attach to individuals but totheir roles in a given interaction

2.4 Critique of Brown and Levinson’s politeness strategies

Though Brown and Levinson's theory is widely applicable, some

weaknesses in their theory have been noted

Firstly, academia’s main critique of Brown and Levinson's theory is itsclaim of universality, or cross-cultural validity Firstly, many sociologistscriticize that politeness theory is heavily based on Western cultures whereindividualism is highly valued compared to many non-Western cultures wheregroup identity is valued over the individual One example of this is theVietnamese culture in which the collectivism is normally of higher value thanthe individualism By way of illustration, the two key elements that underliethe notion of politeness and drive interactants’ behavior in the Vietnamese

culture include lễ (‘rules of propriety’, ‘rites’, ‘morals’, ‘proper conducts’) and tình cảm (‘sentiments’) (Chew 2011) The former element involves (1)

respectfulness or showing respect to people of higher power; and (2) propriety

of showing respect of people of equal or lower power The latter elementmanifests through the speaker’s behavior of care or mutual understandingwith a view to maintaining social harmony From these two elements, it could

be concluded that, there is an emphasis on the conformity of individuals’behavior to social expectations In other words, face must be endorsed by thecommunity; therefore, politeness is the conformity to these expected normsrather than attending to individual face wants, which is not sufficientlydefined in Brown and Levinson’s theory

Secondly, that Brown and Levinson’s theory focuses on the “dualism”concept of face has been challenged by some scholars According to Brown andLevinson (1987), there exists positive face or external aspect of face, whichinvolves a desire for connection with others; and negative face or internal aspect

of face, which needs include autonomy and independence The problem of suchdefinition is that the notion of ‘Positive-Negative’ or ‘External-Internal’ seemssemantically opposite (Bousfield, 2008) Thus, the aspects of face that Brownand Levinson’s are open to be viewed as polar or dichotomous opposite Positiveand negative face oriented utterances cannot co-occur within

a single utterances, in other words However, when it comes to interactions inreal life, the negative and positive face are not that ‘mutually exclusive’ Howthe speaker and the hearer interact and their choice or politeness are clearlydefined by the speech situation and there is no such clear-cut division of eitheronly positive or only negative strategy The speaker and the hearer, in order tocommunicate effectively and successfully, are likely to swiftly switch fromthe positive to the negative strategy, based on the context.

2.5 Teacher’s language in EFL classroom

When it comes to the importance of teacher’s language in EFLclassroom, since 1970s, some scholars have been conducting the studies ofteachers’ language According to Rod Ellis (1985), teachers’ language can betermed as teachers’ talk, teachers’ speech, or teachers’ utterance, which is allabout the language use in class Flanders (1970) defines teaching activity as

“acts by the teacher which occur in the context of classroom interaction”.

Hakansson (1986) and Ellis (1990) also claim the importance role of teachers’language in managing classroom interaction Nunan (1991) illustrates theimportance of teachers’ language, both for the management of classroom and

in the process of acquisition; for classroom management teachers’ languagemay succeed or fail to carry out the teaching activities, while during thecourse of acquisition teachers’ language is the major medium forunderstanding knowledge input that the learners are able to receive

Besides, following Brown and Levinson, three factors are calculated todetermine the weight of the FTAs (i.e the degree of risk to students’ face) inthe classroom context and are expected to influence its redress (i.e., theexecution of politeness strategies)

Accordingly, in Brown and Levinson’s theory, the strength orweightiness of a particular FTA (e.g a request, an invitation, or a refusal) isthe sum of these factors (1987, p76-80):

1) social distance (D) between speaker and hearer, refers to the degree of familiarity and solidarity they share;

2) relative power (P) of hearer over speaker in respect to hearer means the degree to which the speaker can impose his/her will on speaker; and

3) absolute rating (Rx) of imposition in the culture, in terms of the expenditure of goods or services by hearer, the right of speaker to perform the act, and the degree to which the hearer welcomes the imposition.

Wx = D (S, H) + P (H,S) + Rx

(Brown and Levinson, 1987, p.76)

In EFL classroom teaching, English is not only the target language forstudents to learn, but also a medium for teachers to teach English EFL teachersare the models for the students to imitate while their language is the mostimportant source for students to gain the knowledge of the language Teachers’language is a language applied in a special language situation, while politeness

is regarded as a most favorable strategy in interpersonal relationship In otherwords, EFL classroom context functions as a community in which English isused as the main medium of exchanging knowledge and ideas, further, theparticipants in such context are the teacher and his/her students As such,politeness, especially politeness strategies realized

linguistically throughutterances in English, is one of the core elements helping promote teacher-student relationship The teacher, thus, should take into consideration ‘how tospeak’ and ‘what to speak’ in the classroom

Combining Brown and Levinson’s politeness strategy with teachers’language use, the researcher aims at what politeness strategies are applied inEFL classroom and how this combination facilitates teaching and learningactivities and benefits both teachers and students

2.6 Concept of perception

There are many definitions and theories of perceptions Mussen (1973)define ‘perception’ as the process of attaining awareness and acquiring

information through the sensory receptors (e.g eyes, ears, nose, and skin),which involves human’s five senses This is also the process of selection,organization, and interpretation of stimuli by someone to be a coherent andmeaningful picture of the world (Kumar, 2014) In other words, by passingperceptual process, people can interpret their idea meaningfully based on whatthey see, hear, taste, smell, and touch Harnard (2006) goes one step further asthe author proposes two aspects of perception that are cognitive andpsychology The former aspect emphasizes on understanding and makingsense of things, which includes reasoning, arguments and logic This aspectcan be examined by seeing the results of how emotion, experience, andintelligence contribute to the understanding and responses Meanwhile, thelatter one only focuses on the relation of experience that influencesstimulation, and then the result of it affects the perception itself When itcomes to factors influencing a person’s perception, Hadini (2014) claims thatthere are two types of factors: internal and external For internal factor, theperception of an individual will influenced by psychological needs, personalbackground, experience, personality, attitudes and personal believe, and selfacceptance On the other hand, for the external factor it influenced by outsidefactors such as stimulus, environment, culture and believe.

In this current study, L2 students played the role of the perceivers, whilethe perceived subject was the teacher’s utterances Regarding the former, variousresearchers have identified certain characteristics of the perceiver which canmodify perception According to Randolph and Blackburn (1989, p 89), thereare three factors contributing to the differences in perception, namely, which theindividual has learnt, the motivation and the personality of the perceiver.Robbins (1991) identifies five factors influencing on one’s perception, which arethe perceiver’s interest, motives, experience and

expectation Johnson (1994), meanwhile, is on par with Forgus and Melamed’s(1976) categorization According to these authors, perception is influenced by(1) social experience and cultural background, (2) the perceiver’s value andpersonality, and (3) the dynamics person perception Besides the perceiver,the situational context, in which the object is perceived, is also a decisivefactor affecting the perception process.

As such, studying student’s perception of the teacher’s language use inthe classroom means examining how effective and appropriate the teacher’sutterances are made sense of from the students’ perspective, values, culturalbackground and motivation to learn English

2.7 Related studies on Teacher’s politeness strategies in EFL classroom

According to Nunan (1991), teachers’ language is of crucialimportance, not only for the organization of the classroom, but also for theprocess of acquisition That is to say, teacher’s utterances in L2 classroomhave a certain impact on the teaching and learning process, as well as thestudents’ outcome Research on teacher’s language in L2 classroom,accordingly, has a long tradition There are growing appeals for teacher’spoliteness strategies and recent studies into teacher’s politeness strategieshave been conducted in different context and with a wide range ofparticipants, from high school teachers to college ones

Jiang (2010) investigated teacher’s linguistic politeness in EFLclassroom His study had a case study design whose participants were oneChinese teacher and the students In Jiang’s study, the teacher’s politenessstrategies were seen in respect to the process of teaching and learning

activities such as instruction, motivating the class, evaluating the students and

classroom management Follows is the classification of teacher’s politeness

strategies in the classroom:

1) Giving instructions, e.g “Let’s begin our class”, “Shall we move to the topic of the text?”, or “This question is kind of difficult Please think carefully.”

2) Motivating, e.g “Why don’t you …” “Maybe you can correct this sentence”,

or “You can give it a try”

3) Evaluating/Giving feedback, e.g “Excellent”, “Good job”, or “Well done, Ms

In his case study analysis, Zaenul (2014) claimed that teacher andstudents utilized all the politeness strategies proposed by Brown and Levinson(1987) during their learning process in EFL context The participants on hisresearch were one teacher and twenty-eight students at grade 11 His researchmethod took the form of observation in ‘natural setting’, which aimed at notinterfering the teaching-learning process The result from Zaenul’s studyrevealed that among the four types of politeness strategy, positive politenessstrategy was often utilized the most in L2 classroom He further asserted thatteachers attempt to be fun and friendly to the students It was merely to

minimize the threat (FTA) or imposition In other words, that the teacher

attempted to creates a close relationship with the students in the classroomwould automatically influence the studens’ learning process In this case, thestudents not only enjoyed the class but also respected their teacher during theteaching and learning process However, since the author’s interpretationsolely based on his observation, the conclusion was probably subjective andmight fail to capture the nature of the teacher-student interaction The in-classoccurrences ought to be analyzed through the lenses of the teacher and thestudents, in other words.

A similar pattern of result was obtained by Mahmud (2017) The authorconducted a descriptive qualitative study, whose participants were asecondary teacher and her students in English class The results collectedthrough audio recording, observation checklist and interview enabled theauthor to conclude that teachers use positive politeness strategy the mostdominantly in their EFL classroom, further, this strategy helped create a goodcommunication between the teachers and their student In this study, therewas no evidence of off-record strategy used in the class; however, there was

no conclusion drawn from such phenomenon

In line with previous studies, Yoga and her co-authors (2018) alsoconducted a study investigating on the implication of politeness strategies inteaching-learning process between one high school teacher and her grade-10students By means of observation and interview, the author got more insights

on the stated iressue Specifically, the research result showed the significantinfluence of teacher’s politeness strategy on the following aspects in EFLclassroom: efficiency in the process of learning and teaching, respectcommunication between teacher and students, less imposition and directness

in teaching-learning process, and more ‘togetherness’ between teacher andstudents