A study on different politeness strategies used in english conversations in the power base course books

CERTIFICATE OF ORIGINALITY I, the undersigned, hereby certify my authority of the study project report entitled A Study On Different Politeness Strategies Used In English Conversations I

MINISTRY OF EDUCATION AND TRAINING

HANOI OPEN UNVERSITY

Hanoi, 2015

CERTIFICATE OF ORIGINALITY

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

entitled

A Study On Different Politeness Strategies Used In English Conversations

In The “Power Base” Course Books Submitted in partial fulfillment of the requirements for the degree of Master in English Linguistics Except where the reference is indicated, no other person’s work has been used without due acknowledgement in the

text of the thesis

Hanoi, 2015

Tô Thị Lệ

Approved by SUPERVISOR

PHẠM THỊ TUYẾT HƯƠNG, PhD

Date: ………

ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS

This thesis could not have been completed without the help and support from a number of people

First and foremost, I would like to express my sincere gratitude to

Dr Pham Thi Tuyet Huong, my supervisor, who has patiently and constantly supported me through the stages of the study, and whose stimulating ideas Expertise, and suggestions have inspired me gratefully through my growth as an academic researcher

A special word of thanks goes to all my lecturers and officers of Faculty of Graduate Study, Hanoi Open University, and many others, without whose support and encouragement it would never have been possible for me to have this thesis accomplished

Last but not least, I am greatly indebted to my family, my mother and my three brothers for the sacrifice they have always encouraged and devoted to the fulfillment of this academic work

Tô Thị Lệ

ABSTRACT

The thesis is entitled “A study on different politeness strategies used

in English conversations in the Power Base course books” It aims at

finding out the different politeness strategies used in English conversations

in the Power Base course books, thus enabling Vietnamese learners of English to use them properly when taking part in English conversations The researcher used a qualitive research since the data engaged are displayed in the form of strings of words The data were collected from the course books “Powerbase”, which were published by David Evans in 2003 This thesis focuses on politeness strategies proposed by Brown and Levinson with reference to both English and Vietnamese

The different politeness strategies in the conversational activities of the course books “Power base” are based on what has been theoretically and critically discussed in Brown and Levinson’s politeness theory

The result shows that there are 5 strategies of positive politeness strategies found from the course books “Power base”; 3 strategies of negative politeness strategies found in the data; and 2 strategies of off -record

The thesis also suggests some possible exercises for Vietnamese learners of English and teachers of English to help them have an overview

of the politeness strategies in the conversational activities

LIST OF ABBREVIATIONS

(In Alphabetical Order)

C.i Conversationally implicates

e.i that is (to say)

EFL English as a Foreign Language

ELT English Language Teaching

e.g for example

FTA face - threating act

H Hearer, addressee

P Polite

S Speaker, addressor

T Second – person singular pronoun (Latin: T.U)

V Second – person plural honorific pronoun (Latin: VOS)

LIST OF TABLES

Table 1 Feature of speech act types 12

Table 2: Frequencies of different positive politeness strategies 48

Table 3: Frequencies of different negative politeness strategies 56

Table 4: Frequencies of different off –record 62

Table 5: The total of different politeness strategies in the course books “Power Base” 67

TABLE OF CONTENTS

CERTIFICATE OF ORIGINALITY i

ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS ii

ABSTRACT iii

LIST OF ABBREVIATIONS iv

LIST OF TABLES v

TABLE OF CONTENTS vi

Chapter 1: INTRODUCTION 1

1.1 Rationale of the research 1

1.2 Aims of the research 2

1.3 Objectives of the research 3

1.4 Scope of the research 3

1.5 Significance of the research 4

1.6 Structural organization of the thesis 4

Chapter 2: LITERATURE REVIEW 6

2.1 Review of previous studies 6

2.2 Review of theoretical background 9

2.2.1 Theoretical framework 9

2.2.1.1 Theory of Speech Act 9

2.2.1.2 Cooperative Principle 12

2.2.2 Theoretical background 13

2.2.2.1 Positive politeness strategies in English 14

2.2.2.2 Negative politeness strategies in English 20

2.2.2.3 Off – record in English 26

2.2.2.4 Positive politeness strategies in Vietnamese ….……… 32

2.2.2.5 Negative politeness strategies in Vietnamese ……… 34

2.2.2.6 Off - record in Vietnamese ……… 36

2.3 Summary 39

Chapter 3: METHODOLOGY 41

3.1 Research – governing orientations 41

3.1.1 Research questions 41

3.1.2 Research setting ………41

3.1.3 Research approach 42

3.1.4 Principles for intended data collection and data analysis……….….42

3.2 Research methods 43

3.2.1 Major methods and supporting methods 43

3.2.2 Data collection techniques 44

3.2.3 Data analysis techniques 44

3.3 Summary 46

CHAPTER 4: FINDINGS AND DISCUSSIONS 47

4.1 Positive politeness strategies used in English conversations in the course books “Power base” 48

4.2 Negative politeness strategies used in English conversations in the course books “Power base” 56

4.3 Off - record used in English conversations in the course books “Power base” 62

4.4 The implications for teaching and learning the politeness strategies used in English conversations in the course books “Power Base” 67

4.5 Summary 68

Chapter 5: CONCLUSION 70

5.1 Recapitulation 70

5.2 Concluding remarks 71

5.3 Limitations and Suggestions for future research 73

5.3.1 Limitations 73

5.3.2 Suggestions for future research 73

REFERENCES 75 APPENDIX

Chapter 1 INTRODUCTION 1.1 Rationale of the research

Learning a foreign language is a great significance today It is the

bridge connecting in many fields The mastery of a foreign language

enables us to communicate with people from other countries, achieve

mutual understandings, and our further trade contacts, economic

co - operations, and cultural and academic exchanges with other countries

In everyday conversation, there are many ways to talk or to order about

getting things we want, but it depends on different social situations For

example, when we are with a group of friends, we can say to them, “Go get

me that plate!” or “shut - up!” However, when we are surrounded by a

group of adults at a formal function in which our parents are attending, we

must say, “would you please pass me that plate, if you don’t mind?” and

“I’m sorry, I don’t mean to interrupt, but I am not able to hear the speaker

in the front of the room” Thus, we are obliged to adjust our use of

language to fit the occasion It would seem socially unacceptable if you

were to speak the same way to adults as you would to your friends

There are many things to write about but I choose to study the different

politeness strategies used in English conversations in the “Power Base”

course books This is because of some reasons First of all, there are a lot of

course books using politeness strategies in English conversations, but the

Power Base course books, which make me feel really interested in

researching that is firstly reasonable for my study On the other hand,

although English has been taught in Vietnam for many years, only until

recently, has emphasis been laid on form - based instruction, which means that students are mainly taught the phonological, grammatical, and lexical components of English They are not provided with enough cultural factors

to ensure a successful cross - cultural communication Many Vietnamese teachers of English still appreciate pure linguistic competence in the achievement of successful communication rather than knowledge of social norms and values, roles and relations between individuals Therefore, learners do not know what to say in order to have contextual, situational and cultural appropriateness in communication They focus on the learning

of as much grammar and vocabulary as possible Consequently, they have a limited ability to communicate orally in an appropriate way, although they can read considerably well Learners have almost no chance to expose themselves to native speaking environment As a result, most Vietnamese learners tend to use English in accordance with the norms of the Vietnamese culture, and thus, causing negative - effects In order to communicate well across cultures, learners must be aware of the hidden parts of culture: values, beliefs, perceptions, communication style, and politeness strategies

For all the above mentioned reasons, “A study on different politeness

strategies used in English conversations in the “Power Base” course

books” has been chosen for my graduation thesis It is hoped that the study will help Vietnamese EFL students have a better understanding of politeness strategies used in the conversation of Power Base course books

and use them properly while communicating

1.2 Aims of the research

This research is conducted to aim at pointing out the different

politeness strategies used in English conversations in the Power Base course books, thus enabling Vietnamese learners of English to use them properly when taking part in English conversations

1.3 Objectives of the research

In order to achieve the aims, the following objectives are put forward: i) Describing positive politeness strategies used in English conversations in the course books “Power Base”

ii) Describing negative politeness strategies used in English conversations in the course books “Power Base”

iii) Describing off - record used in English conversations in the course books “Power Base”

iv) Giving the implications for teaching and learning the politeness strategies used in English conversations in the Power Base course books

1.4 Scope of the research

ii) Social scope:

It is expected that the results of this research will be able to help Vietnamese EFL learners, especially learners of English to do business, have a better understanding of such politeness strategies so as to use them properly when taking part in English conversations

1.5 Significance of the research

(i) Theoretical significance

In terms of theoretical significance, this study is expected to contribute

an in – depth description of English politeness strategies when analysing the different forms of politeness strategies used in the Power Base course books

(ii) Practical significance

Politeness plays an important role to make a successful conversation; therefore, the need of EFL learners should acquire sociolinguistic competence to help students use the politeness while communicating with native speakers in a natural way Because of completing the research, some contributions will be made to improve the English teaching and learning quality for teachers of English and Vietnamese EFL learners

1.6 Structural organization of the thesis

This thesis begins with certificate of originality, acknowledgements, a table of contents, abbreviations and a list of figures and tables Mainly, the

graduation thesis’ body of the research paper, divided into five chapters:

Chapter 1 - “Introduction” – shows a brief account of relevant information for carrying out the research namely the rationale for the research, the aims of the research, the objectives of the research, the scope

of the research, the significance of the research and the structural organization of the thesis

Chapter 2 - “Literature Review” – presents the overview of the previous researches related to the thesis topic and covers a review of theoretical background related to English politeness strategies in the “Power Base” course books

Chapter 3 - “Methodology” - provides a full description of the specific methods and techniques which will be applied to conduct the graduation thesis

Chapter 4 - “ Findings and discussions” – m describes and analyses the different forms of politeness strategies used in English conversations in the Power Base course books, shows out some figure of different politeness strategies used in the Power Base course books

Chapter 5 - “ Conclusions and implications” – summaries the major findings resulted from the investigation and data analysis, presents the limitations of the study, provides some suggestions for further research and proposes some possible implications for teaching and learning English politeness strategies

Chapter 2 LITERATURE REVIEW

This chapter provides the theoretical background of the thesis It is divided into three main sections Section 1 discusses the previous studies, section 2 gives a review of theoretical background, and section 3 is the summary of the whole chapter 2

2.1 Review of previous studies

During the Enlightenment era, a self - conscious process of the imposition of polite norms and behaviors became a symbol of being a genteel member of the upper class Nowadays, we find that people are using the same terms in very different ways, and operating with different definitions of politeness In this section, we are glad to mention a brief discussion of Brown and Levinson’s, Leech’s, Yule’s and Lakoff’s theories

According to Lakoff (in Yule, 1996: 106) when one enters a conversation - indeed, every kind of discourse – one has some personal desideratum in mind: perhaps as obvious as a favor or as subtle as the desire to be likeable For some of these needs, participants can accede to each other, and both gain their desires but with others, one must lose, however minimally, for the others to win One person must tell other something that the other does not want to hear, one person must refuse another’s request, and one person must end a conversation before the other

is quite willing to go In such cases, there is a danger of insult and consequently the breakdown of communication And Lakoff (in Yule, 1996: 106) defines politeness as:

“A system of interpersonal relations designed to facilitate interaction by minimizing the potential conflict and confrontation inherent in all human interchange.”

Yule (1996: 60) defines that “it is possible to treat politeness as a fixed concept, as in the idea of “polite social behaviour”, or etiquette, within a culture”

According to Leech (in Thomas (1995: 158) "politeness as crucial in explaining “why people are often so indirect in conveying what they mean” and (1983:80) as "recruiting the Cooperative Principle”

Thomas sees that politeness interpreted as a genuine desire to be pleasant to others, or as the underlying motivation for an individual’s linguistic behavior (1995:150)

Lakoff (1973) has described three different rules a speaker might follow

in choosing to be polite:

+ Rule 1: Don’t impose

Not imposing means not giving or seeking personal opinions, avoiding personal reference, avoiding reference to family, personal problems, habits, and the like – in short, upholding a pretense that participants have no person-hood or share experience More particularly this means avoiding earthy, slangy, and even merely emotional language, and also whatever topics of conversation are tattoo because they are considered too personal

to discuss in public: love, sex, politics, religion, economic difficulties, the human body and the like In most English speaking cultures, avoiding personal reference means using tittles (e.g Mr, Professor, Dr, Captain)

+ Rule 2: Offer Options

Offering options means expressing oneself in such a way that one’s opinion or request can be ignored without being contradicted or rejected

+ Rule 3: Encourage Feelings of Camaraderie

This rule is for friendly or intimate politeness in which almost any topic

of conversation is fair game

As likely, Leech (1983) also claims a number of maxims standing in the same relationship to the Politeness Principle as Grice’s maxims stand to Cooperative Principle The maxims are:

+ Tact maxim: minimize cost to other; Maximize benefit to other

+ Generosity maxim: minimize benefit to self; Maximize cost to self + Approbation maxim: minimize dispraise to other; Maximize dispraise

to self

+ Modesty maxim: minimize praise to self; Maximize praise to other + Agreement maxim: minimize disagreement between self and other; Maximize agreement between self and other

+ Sympathy maxim: minimize antipathy between self and other; Maximize sympathy between self and other

Similar to Grice’s and Lakoff’s maxims, Leech’s maxims are formulated as imperatives Leech sees that they are simply the statements

of norms which speakers can be observed to follow

People, however, may fail to observe a maxim, for example, because

they are incapable of speaking clearly, or because they deliberately choose

to lie

2.2 Review of theoretical background

2.2.1 Theoretical framework

2.2.1.1 Theory of Speech Act

According to J.L Austin (1962), speech act theory has led to the design

of the notional – functional syllabus in English language teaching and

speech act analysis has offered a valuable way to look at language function

and the connection between function and grammatical form

a) Definitions of Speech Act

There are many definitions of speech act from many theorists in the

speech act theory; however, it is shared in activities and it is involved while

a person says something

Searle shared (1964: 24), language is part of a theory of action, and

speech acts are those verbal acts such as promising, threatening and

requesting that one performs in speaking

According to George Yule (1996: 47), actions performed via utterance

are generally called speech acts, and in English, are commonly given more

specific labels such as apology, complaint, compliment, invitation, promise

or order In real life conversations, people do not only produce utterance

containing grammatical structures and lexical factors, but also perform

actions through these utterances According to Richards (1985: 104):

“Speech acts are acts in nature, not sentences” There is no

one utterance - one function A single utterance can have more than one

function For example, “I’m thirsty” can be used to perform the acts of

statement and request.”

b) Types of Speech Act

According to Austin J.L (1962), there are three related acts on any occasion such as: locutionary act, illocutonary act and perlocutionary act

- Locutionary act is the physical act of producing a well formed and meaningful utterance

- Illocutionary act is the force or intention of speaker or writer behind the words

- Perlocutionary act is the effect of the illocution on the hearer or the reader It also includes the change to state of mind, knowledge or attitude

of the hearer or the reader

Indeed, part of the problem stems from the fact that the same locution could have a different illocutionary force in different context Take an

example to illustrate: “What time is it?” It will have some means depending

on the context of utterance:

+ The speaker wants the hearer to tell him the time

+ The speaker is annoyed because the hearer is late

+ The speaker thinks it is time the hearer went home

Or other utterance like “I will see you later” can be represented different

illocutionary forces as the same as a promise, a prediction, or a warning

However, following George Yule (1996: 49), he claims that: “Of three types of speech acts, the most discussed one is illocutionary force Indeed, the term speech act is generally interpreted quite narrowly to mean only the illocutionary force of an utterance”

Searle (1990: 351) refers the point of purpose of illocution that there are five illocutionary points such as declarations, expressives, representatives, commissives and directives

- Declarations are those kinds of speech acts that change the world via their utterance For example:

1 Ho Chi Minh declared the independence of Vietnam in 1945

Expressives are those kinds of speech acts that express feelings and attitudes For example:

2 Nice to meet you

- Representatives are those kinds of speech acts that tell people how and what things are For example:

3 The sun rises in the East and set-up in the West

- Commissives are those kinds of speech acts that speakers use to commit themselves to some future action

4 I promise to come to your house tomorrow

- Directives are those kinds of speech acts that speakers use to get some one else to do something For example:

5 Open the door, please!

Speech Act Type Direction of fit

S: speaker, X: situation

Declarations Words change the world S causes X

Representatives Make words fit the world S believes X Expressives Make the world fit words S feels X

Directives Make the world fit words S wants X

Commissives Make the world fit words S intends X

Table 1 Feature of speech act types However, George Yule claims that speech acts can be divided into direct and indirect ones by combining three structural forms ( declarative, imperative, interrogative) and three general communicative functions (statement, question, command/ request) For example:

6 “What is your name?” (A direct speech act),

One could ask “Could I know your name please?” (An indirect speech act)

To sum up, speech act is the act we perform in making speech The speech act theory helps us interpret the function and operation of language

Quality: Try to make your contribution one that is true

+ Do not say what you believe to be false

+ Do not say that for which you lack adequate evidence

The Cooperative Principle governs conversational interaction, and

rational speakers abide by the maxims insofa as they are able, and expect

their interlocutors to Thus, if we do not want to have misunderstanding

while making conversation that the interlocutors should follow the

cooperative principle

2.2.2 Theoretical background

In this paper, we will focus on Brown and Levinson’s the definition of

politeness (1978, 1987); the general social meaning of politeness which is

illustrated in English and Vietnamese

According to Brown and Levinson (1987), politeness strategies are

developed in order to save the hearer’s “face” Face refers to the respect

that an individual has for him or herself, and maintaining that

“self - esteem” in public or in private situations Usually you try to avoid embarrassing the other person, or making them feel uncomfortable Face threatening Acts (FTA’s) are acts that infringe on the hearer’s need to maintain his/her self-esteem, and to be respected

There are three main types of politeness strategies, described by Brown and Levinson (1987) that sum up human “politeness” behavior such as positive politeness, negative politeness, and off - record strategy

2.2.2.1 Positive politeness strategies in English

a) Definitions of positive politeness

According to Brown and Levinson (1987: 101) “positive politeness is redress directed to the addressee’s positive face, his perennial desire that he wants (or the actions/acquisitions/values resulting from them) should be thought of as desirable”

Brown and Levinson also added: “In positive politeness the sphere of redress is widened to the appreciation of alter’s wants in general or to the expression of similarity between ego’s and alter’s wants”

Brown and Levinson (1987: 101-29) had listed fifteen positive politeness strategies giving copious illustrations for each strategy

b) Positive politeness strategies

When using positive politeness strategies the speaker tends to show his/her concern to the other or let the other know they have a common ground

Strategy 1: Noticing, attending to H (his interest, wants, needs, goods)

This output suggests that S should take notice of aspects of H’s condition (noticeable changes, remarkable possessions, anything which looks as though H would want to notice and approve of it) For example:

7 You must be thirsty How about some orange juice?

S also should include himself as part of the act For example:

8 We ate too much beans tonight, didn’t we?

Strategy 2: Exaggerating interest, approval, sympathy with H

This is often done with exaggerated intonation, stress and manifested by

choosing words at extremes of the relevant value scales such as: “marvellous

ridiculous, absolutely, completely…” S may use this strategy to please H For example:

9 What a lovely house you have!

You are completely right?

Strategy 3: Intensifying interest to H

This strategy may be done by using vivid present, past tenses, and directly quoted speech rather than indirect reported speech For example:

10 I come down the stairs, and what do you think I see? A huge mess all over the place, the phone’s off the hook and clothes are all over…

Strategy 4: Using in - group identity markers

These markers are in - group usages of address forms, of language or dialect,

of jargon or slang, and of ellipsis For address forms S may use T/V systems and

other terms like Mac, mate, buddy, honey, dear, mom, brother, sister, guys…

11 You look beautiful today, sister

+ Using nickname - form to full name

12 Johnny – John Henry Smith

+ Using ellipsis

13 How about dinner tonight?

Strategy 5: Seeking agreement

One way to seek agreement is to choose the safe topics such as weather, sports, families, etc

Agreement may also be stressed by repeating pare or all of what the preceding speaker has said, in a conversation For example:

14 A: I went to London last week!

B: To Lo’ndon (stressed in Lo’n don)

Strategy 6: Avoiding disagreement

One way to avoid disagreement is pretending to agree which is called

found in the use of then and so as a conclusion marker For example:

16 So when are you coming to see us?

A further output of the positive politeness desire to avoid disagreement

is the social “white lie” where S, instead of stating an opinion, he/she wants

to lie For example:

17 Can I use your mobile phone now?

Oh, I can’t The batteries are dead

Both S and H may know that this is not true, but H’s face is saved by not having his request refused point - blank “White lie” is often used in Vietnamese

Strategy 7: Presupposing/ raising/ asserting common ground

+ Gossip, small talk: S spends time and effort on being with H, as a mark of friendship or interest in him by talking for a while about unrelated topics This strategy is at least for softening requests for favors

+ Personal - center switch: S to H This is where S speaks as if H were S

or H’s knowledge were equal to S’s knowledge For example:

18 I had a really hard time learning to drive, didn’t I?

One, moreover, can merge the "I” and “you” into an inclusive "we” although it is only H who is really being referenced to For example:

19 Now, have we taken our medicine? (Doctor to patient)

One can choose to use “you know” where H couldn’t possibly know

For example:

20 I really had a hard time learning to drive, you know

To presuppose knowledge of H’s wants and attitudes, negative questions with presume “ yes” as an answer, are widely used, as a way to indicate that S knows H’s wants, tastes, and habits For example:

21 Wouldn’t you like a drink?

Yes!

Strategy 8: Joking

Joking is a basic positive politeness technique for putting H “at ease” or minimizing a FTA of requesting For example:

22 Ok if I tackle those cookies now?

By using positive politeness strategies S also wants to convey that S and

H as cooperators in the relevant activity

Strategy 9: Asserting or presupposing H’s knowledge of and concern for H’s wants

One way of indicating that S and H are cooperators, and thus potentially

to put pressure on H to cooperate with S, is to assert or imply knowledge H’s wants and willingness to fit one’s own want in with them For example:

23 I know you can’t bear parties, but this one will really be good – do come (Request + offer)

Strategy 10: Offering, promising

In order to redress the potential threat of some FTAs, S may choose to stress his cooperation with H in another way Offers and promises are the

natural outcome of choosing this strategy For example:

24 I’ll come to see you soon

Strategy 11: Using optimistic

Presumptuous or optimistic “expressions of FTAs are one outcome of this strategy For example:

25 You’ll lend me your lawnmower for the weekend, I hope

Such optimistic expressions of FTAs seem to work by minimizing the size of the face threat This minimization may be literally stated with

expressions like a little, a bit, for a second And the presumptuousness may

be partially softened with a token tag For example:

26 I’m borrowing you scissors for a sec, ok?

Strategy 12: Including both S and H in the activity

By using an inclusive “we” form, when S really means “you” or “me”,

he can call upon the cooperative assumptions and thereby redress FTAs

Noting that “let’s” in English is an inclusive “we” form For example:

27 Let’s have a cookie, then (i.e – me)

Strategy 13: Giving (or asking for) reasons

Giving reasons is a way of implying “I can help you” or “you can help me”, and assuming cooperation, a way of showing what help is needed For example:

28 Why don’t you come and have a cup of tea?

Strategy 14: Assuming or asserting reciprocity

The existence of cooperation between S and H may also be claimed or urged by giving evidence of reciprocal rights or obligations obtaining between S and H Thus H may say, in effect, “I’ll do X for you if you do Y for me” or “I did X for you before, so you do Y for me now” By pointing

to the reciprocal right of doing FTAs to each other, S may soften his FTA

by negating the debt aspect and / or the face threatening aspect of speech acts such as criticisms and complaints For example:

29 I’ll give you some money if you promise not to tell it to anyone else

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

This strategy involves S deciding to redness H’s face directly by fulfilling some of H’s wants, indeed, the wants to be liked, cared about, understood, admired, listened to and so on For example:

30 Wow! You are so great, you have ever passed over 50 candidates in

an easy way

2.2.2.2 Negative politeness strategies in English

a) Definition of negative politeness

Brown and Levinson (1987: 129) claim: “Negative politeness is redness action addressed to the addressee’s negative face: his wants to have his freedom of action unhindered and his attention unimpeded” Indeed, they also add that: “Negative politeness is specific and focused; it performs the fiction of minimizing the particular imposition that the FTA unavoidably

effects”

b) Negative politeness strategies

Brown and Levinson (1987: 131) list 10 strategies for negative politeness

Strategy 1: Expressing conventionally indirect

In this strategy S must face with opposing tensions: the desire to give H

an “out” by being indirect, and the desire to go on record In this case it is solved by the compromise of conventional indirectness, the use of phrases and sentences that have contextually unambiguous meanings which are different from their literal meanings, in this way the utterance goes on record, and S indicates his desire to have gone off – record For example:

31 Honey, it’s time for tea (e.i Prepare dinner otherwise it will be late)

Strategy 2: Using question, hedge

In the literature, a “hedge” is a particle, a word, or a phrase that modifies the degree of membership of a predicate or noun phrase in a set For example:

32 John is a true friend

33 You’re quite right

There are some particles, words, phrases that can serve as hedges: sort of,

regular, rather, true, pretty, I suppose, I guess, I think, really, sincerely, completely, perhaps, certainly, more and less well maybe, then, myself, in a way,

in fact, in a sense, in all probability, it seems to me, don’t you agree, as you

know, add it well known, frankly, to be honest, I hate to have to say this, but…

Hedges, in the light of illocutionary force, are linguistic means of

satisfying the speaker’s wants “Don’t assume H is able/ willing to do A/

and, to some extent, the want to make minimal assumptions about hearer’s

wants” (Brown and Levinson 1987: 146) For example:

34 I wonder if you could come early tomorrow

35 Would you close the window, if I may ask you?

Strategy 3: Using pessimistic

This strategy gives redness to H’s negative face by explicitly expressing

doubt that the conditions for the appropriateness of S’s speech act obtain

For example:

36 I don’t suppose you could close the window for me

We have three important realizations of the strategy: the use of the

negative (with a tag), the use of the subjunctive, and the use of remote - possibility markers This strategy underlies the schema for the

construction of polite indirect speech act

Strategy 4: Minimizing the imposition

Using this strategy, the speaker tries to give the choice to the addresses

whether he/ she wants to do this or reduce as much imposition on someone

else’s negative face as possible when requesting

A range of expressions that minimize rating of imposition is: a tiny, a

sip, a little bit, a little, just For example:

37 I just want to ask you if I can borrow a bit of salt for my cooking

Strategy 5: Giving deference

This strategy uses deferential factors to convey social hierarchy and rank Brown and Levinson define that “There are two sides of the coin in realization of deference one in which S humbles and abases himself and another where S raises H – satisfies H’s wants to be treated as superior” (1987: 178) People tend to abase themselves first and raise the others before asking them to do something For example:

38 Excuse me, sir, could you tell me your name, please?

In English people may use address forms such as sir, madam, lady, Mr…

Strategy 6: Apologizing

By apologizing for doing a FTA the speaker can show his/ her reluctance to impose on H’s negative face There are four ways to communicate regret or reluctance to do a FTA

+ Admit the impingement: S can simply admit that he is impinging on H’s face For example:

39 I know you are very busy now, I’m quite sure you can spend a few minutes repairing my light

+ Indicate reluctance: S can attempt to show that he is reluctant to impinge on H with the use of hedges or by means of expressions For example:

40 I don’t want to bother you, but this exercise is too hard for me

+ Give overwhelming reasons: S can claim that he has compelling reasons for doing FTA, thereby implying that normally he wouldn’t dream

of infringing H’s negative face For example:

41 I can think of nobody else who could help me to look after my god? While I am away, so I brought it to you

+ Beg forgiveness: S may beg H’s forgivingness For example:

42 I hope you’ll forgive me if I did break your glasses on kitchen table

Strategy 7: Expressing impersonality of S and H

The speaker uses this strategy to avoid the pronouns “I” and “you” to show the distance between them There are five subdivisions of this strategy

+ Performatives For example:

44 Do this for me.

+ Imperatives For example:

45 Open the door!

+ Impersonal verbs For example:

46 It’s necessary to finish this task before 5 p.m.

+ Passive and circumstantial voices

The passive is the means of avoiding reference to person involved FATs, and used to remove direct reference to the speaker For example:

47 If it is possible, the best way is to complete the task before Tet holidays

+ Replacement of the pronouns “I” and “you” by indefinites

S can use standardized impersonal versions of pronouns, which may serve FTA purpose to good effects For example:

48 Someone has eaten the cookies

Strategy 8: Stating the FTA as a general rule

One way of dissociating S and H from the particular imposition in the FTA is to state the FTA as an instance of some general social rule, regulation, or obligation For example:

49 We don’t sit on the table, we sit on chairs, Johnny

Strategy 9: Normalizing

We noticed that in English, degrees of negative politeness (or at least formality) run hand in hand with degrees of nouniness, that is formality is associated with the noun end of the continuum

We get the hierarchy of formality of phrases like these For example:

50 I am pleased to be able to inform you…

51 It is pleasing/pleasant/my pleasure to be able to inform you…

Strategy 10: Going on record as incurring a debt, or as not indenting H

S can be redness a FTA by explicitly claiming his indebtedness to H, or

by disclaiming any indebtedness of H, by means of expressions such as the following:

+ Requests For example:

52 I’d be eternally grateful if you would go with me

To sum up, negative politeness involves the speaker’s and hearer’s independence This is also known as the “formal politeness strategy” which creates the distance between the speaker and hearer In most English speaking countries, people are more inclined to employ negative politeness strategies What politeness strategy, however, is preferred by what culture suggests a problem

2.2.2.3 Off – record in English

a) Definition of off - record

A communicative act is done off record if it is done in such a way that

it is not possible to attribute only one clear communicative intention to the act A speaker wants to do an FTA but wants to avoid responsibility for doing it off record and leave it up to the addressee to decide how to interpret it Such off-record utterances are essentially indirect use of language In order to construct an off-record utterance one says something that is either more general or actually different from what he means In either case, H must make some inference to recover what was in fact intended

b) Off – record strategies

Invite conversational implicates

If a speaker wants to do a FTA and chooses to do it indirectly, he must

give some hints and hope that H picks up on them and interprets what S really means or intends to say The basic way to do this is to invite conversational implicates by violating the Gricean Maxims of efficient communication in some way, for instance, if S says “It’s hot in here”, he may implicate a request that H open the window

Strategy 1: Giving hints

If S says something that is not explicitly relevant, he invites H to search for an interpretation of the possible relevance by violating the Maxim of Relevance

Hints may also be done by asserting or questioning the condition for A (as in indirect requests) Furthermore, H may use this strategy to soften his request to H For example:

53 It’s hot in here (e.i Open the window)

Strategy 2: Offering H’s experience

S uses this strategy by mentioning something associated with the act required of H, either by precedent in S - H’s experience or by mutual knowledge irrespective of their interactional experience For example:

54 My bike is broken down again

This utterance may be used to convey a request to borrow H’s bike, if S and H mutually know that they both have an association between S having

a broken bike and S wanting to borrow H’s bike

As we can see, the association clues are used for indirect requests and

H has to decode them In many cases, H can hardly interpret, or simply does not decode these clues, and the request is not fulfilled

Strategy 3: Presupposing

A third set of clues to S’s intent is related in a different way to the Relevance Maxim An utterance can be almost relevant in context, and yet violate the Relevance Maxim just at the level of its presupposition For example:

55 I cleaned the floor again today

He presupposes that he has done it before (e.g yesterday) and therefore

may implicate a criticism The use of again forces H to search for the

relevance of the presupposed prior event, as S and H share the task By

using again S wants to mean that today is H’s turn to clean the floor not

his, but he did it instead of H He wants to insert a criticism

Strategy 4: Understating

Understatements are one way of generating implicates by saying less than is required Using this strategy S may violate the Quantity Maxim By being indirect the speaker is inevitably saying something less than or something different from what he actually intends to convey

S invites this strategy when he does not want to convey his actual intent

in order not to hurt H’s feelings or to avoid disagreement For example:

56 A: How do you like Jane’s new dress?

B: It’s Ok (e.i I don’t really like it)

S invites this strategy when he does not want to convey his actual intent

in order to hurt H’s feelings or to avoid disagreement

Strategy 5: Overstating

By choosing this overstatement, S may also convey implication He may

do this by exaggerating or choosing a point on a scale which is higher than the actual state of affairs Using overstatement S may choose to convey an indirect criticism and excuse or apology For example:

57 I have been waiting for you for ages

Strategy 6: Using tautologies

By uttering a tautology, S encourages H to look for an informative interpretation of the non - informative utterance it may be an excuse or a refusal of a request For example:

58 Boys will be boys

59 If I won’t do it, I won’t (e.i I mean it)

Strategy 7: Using contradictions

By violating the Quantity Maxim (speak the truth, be sincere), S forces

H to find some implicates that preserves the Quantity assumption which is the most basic principle of language use By starting two things that contradict each other, S makes it appear that he cannot tell the truth For example:

60 A: Are you unhappy about that?

B: well, yes and no

Strategy 8: Expressing ironic

By saying the opposite of what he means, S can indirectly convey his intended meaning, if there are clues that his intended meaning is being conveyed indirected For example:

61 Beautiful weather, isn’t it? (To a person who must go out in the rain)

In English ironies are often marked by some hedges: real, regular, just… Strategy 9: Using metaphors

Metaphors are a further category of Quality violations The use of metaphors is usually on record, but there is a possibility, exactly which of the connotations of the metaphor S intends may be off-record For example:

62 Mary is a rose in my class (e.i Mary is so beautiful)

Strategy 10: Using rhetorical questions

In order to ask a question with no intention of obtaining an answer, it is

to break a sincerity condition on questions that S wants H to provide him with the indicated information Questions that leave their answers hanging

in the air may be used to do FTAs For example:

63 How was I to know? (e.i I wasn’t)

Strategy 11: Expressing ambiguous

Expressing ambiguous may be achieved through metaphors, since it is

not always clear exactly which of the connotations of a metaphor are intended to be invokes For example:

64 Peter’s a pretty smooth cookie

Could be either a compliment or insult, depending on which of the

connotations of smooth are latched on to

Strategy 12: Using vague

S may go off - record with a FTA by being vague about who the object

of the FTA is or what the offence are criticisms, euphemisms For example:

65 Perhaps someone did something noisy

Strategy 13: Using over - generalize

Rule instantiation may leave the object of the FTA vaguely off-record For example:

66 The lawn has got to be mown

Using proverbs can be served as criticisms For example:

67 A penny saved is a penny earned

Strategy 14: Using incompletely ellipsis

Elliptical utterances are legitimated by various conversational contexts –

in answers to questions For example:

68 Well, if you don’t come…

In this section, we also find out some Vietnamese examples in some

published materials in order to illustrate the similarity between English and Vietnamese language

2.2.2.4 Positive politeness strategies in Vietnamese

Strategy 1: Noticing, attending to H (his interest, wants, needs, goods) For example:

69 Cái áo này của cậu đẹp thế Tớ thử được không?

(Your T-shirt is so lovely May I try it?)

Strategy 2: Exaggerating interest, approval, sympathy with H For example:

70 Người đâu mà đẹp thế! (what a beautiful girl!)

Strategy 3: Intensifying interest to H For example:

71 Bạn nhớ Mai lớp mình không? Hôm qua tớ nhìn thấy nó đi chơi với một chàng trai rất đẹp

(Do you remember Mai in my class? I saw her yesterday and she was walking with a handsome man)

Strategy 4: Using in – group identity markers

Similarly English language, there are also address terms in Vietnamese

namely ông anh, ông bạn, ông em, bà chị, cô em… For example:

72 Hay là mình sang đây ở với tớ một nhà cho vui

In Vietnamese, people also use ellipsis in conversation

73 Gia đình dạo này thế nào? (How about your family?)

Strategy 5: Seeking agreement