A study of politeness strategies in the conversations of the course book inside out pre intermediate

Frequency of positive, negative and mixed politeness strategies used in “Inside Out” Pre-intermediate.... Fully aware of the benefit of understanding politeness strategies, the author c

VIETNAM NATIONAL UNIVERSITY, HANOI UNIVERSITY OF LANGUAGES AND INTERNATIONAL STUDIES

FACULTY OF POST-GRADUATE STUDIES

NGUYỄN THÚY HÒA

A STUDY OF POLITENESS STRATEGIES

IN THE CONVERSATIONS

OF THE COURSE BOOK “INSIDE OUT”

(PRE-INTERMEDIATE)

Nghiên cứu các chiến lược lịch sự trong các bài hội thoại

của giáo trình “Inside Out” (Pre-intermediate)

M.A MINOR THESIS

FIELD: ENGLISH TEACHING METHODOLOGY CODE: 60 14 10

HA NOI - 2010

VIETNAM NATIONAL UNIVERSITY, HANOI UNIVERSITY OF LANGUAGES AND INTERNATIONAL STUDIES

FACULTY OF POST-GRADUATE STUDIES

NGUYỄN THÚY HÒA

A STUDY OF POLITENESS STRATEGIES

IN THE CONVERSATIONS

OF THE COURSE BOOK “INSIDE OUT”

(PRE-INTERMEDIATE)

Nghiên cứu các chiến lược lịch sự trong các bài hội thoại

của giáo trình “Inside Out” (Pre-intermediate)

M.A MINOR THESIS

FIELD: ENGLISH TEACHING METHODOLOGY CODE: 60 14 10

SUPERVISOR: Prof NGUYỄN QUANG, Ph.D

HA NOI - 2010

TABLE OF CONTENTS

Page: Part 1 Introduction 1

I Rationale 1

II Aims of the study 1

III Scope of the study 2

IV Methodology 2

V Design of the study 2

Part 2 Development 4

Chapter I Theoretical Background 4

I.1 Culture and Communication 4

I.2 Communicative Competence 5

I.3 Face and Politeness 6

I.3.1 Face defined 6

I.3.2 Politeness defined 7

I.4 Positive Politeness 10

I.4.1 Positive Politeness defined 10

I.4.2 Positive Politeness strategies 10

I.5 Negative politeness 14

I.5.1 Negative politeness defined 14

I.5.2 Negative politeness strategies 15

Chapter II Positive and negative politeness strategies found in the conversational activities of the coursebook Inside Out (pre- intermediate) 18

II 1 Overview of politeness strategies in “Inside Out” (Pre-intermediate) 18

II.2 Frequency of positive, negative and mixed politeness strategies used in “Inside Out” (Pre-intermediate) 18

II.2.1 Sampling process 18

II 2.2 Balance of positive, negative and mixed politeness strategies 19

II.2.3 Analysis of positive politeness strategies 20

II.2.4 Analysis of negative politeness strategies ……….23

II.3 Positive and negative politeness strategies and S-H relationships 25

II.3.1 Positive politeness strategies and S-H relationships 26

II.3.2 Negative politeness strategies and S-H relationships 28

Chapter III Implications for English Language Teaching 32

III.1 Implications for teaching politeness strategies 32

III.2 Supplementary activities 33

Part 3 Conclusion 39

I Summary 39

II Limitation 39

III Suggestions for further research 40

References I Appendix III

PART I INTRODUCTION

Linguists and anthropologists have long recognized that the forms and uses of a given language reflect the cultural values of the society in which the language is spoken Linguistic competence alone is not enough for learners of a language to become competent

in that language (Krasner, 1999) Language learners need to be aware, for example, of the culturally appropriate ways to address people, express gratitude, make requests, and agree

or disagree with someone Language learners should know that behaviors and intonational patterns that are appropriate to their own speech community may be perceived differently

by members of the target speech community Learners have to understand that in order for communication to be successful, language use must be associated with other culturally appropriate behavior

Hence, to be successful in communicating in the target language, learners must be aware of their own culture and the culture of the target speech community Especially, they must understand the hidden and very important parts of the target culture including the politeness strategies used in everyday conversations

Inside Out is an English coursebook written by Sue Kay, Vaughan Jones and Philip

Kerr This coursebook is employed at the Faculty of Information Technology (Thai Nguyen University) where the thesis author works as a teacher of English

Fully aware of the benefit of understanding politeness strategies, the author conducts an investigation into the performance of positive and negative politeness

strategies in conversational activities of the course book Inside Out (Pre-Intermediate)

with the hope of improving the teaching of communicative English

The aims of the study are:

- To study the performance of positive and negative politeness strategies under the

pressure of S-H role relationships in the conversational activities of the coursebook Inside

III Scope of the study

This study focuses on the positive and negative politeness strategies in conversational

activities of the coursebook Inside Out (Pre-Intermediate) which, for a long time, has been

in use at the author‟s university The study also highlights S-H role relationships Other components of communication (eg., purpose, setting, time availability …), important though they obviously are, are beyond the scope of this study

The major method employed in this study is the quantitative method with due reference

to the qualitative method since this study sets priority on the practical aspects of cultural communication All considerations and conclusions are largely based on data analysis For the theory to be provided, the data to be collected and analyzed, and the findings to be discovered, the following approaches are resorted to:

cross Critical reading of publications

- Discussion with supervisor

- Discussion with colleagues

- Discussion with students

This study includes the following three parts:

Part 1 is the introduction which presents the rationale, aims of the study, scope of the

study and methodology

Part 2 is the development that consists of three chapters

Chapter 1 discusses the theoretical background of culture and communication, communicative competence, face and politeness, positive politeness and negative politeness strategies

Chapter 2 analyzes the performance of politeness strategies in the conversational activities

of the coursebook (Book 2 - Pre-Intermediate) in terms of the performance and frequency

of positive and negative politeness strategies with S-H role relationships in view

Chapter 3 offers implications for English language teaching and supplementary activities for cross-cultural awareness

Part 3 is the conclusion in which the author summarizes the study, raising limitations and

offering suggestions for further research

PART 2 DEVELOPMENT

CHAPTER I THEORETICAL BACKGROUND

I.1 Culture and Communication

The term “culture” refers to the complex collection of knowledge, folklore, language, rules, rituals, habits, lifestyles, attitudes, beliefs, and customs that link and give a common identity to a particular group of people at a specific point in time

According to Phillip K Bock, culture is regarded “in its broadest sense, as what makes you a stranger when you are away from home It includes all those beliefs and expectations about how people should speak and act, which have become a kind of second nature to one as a result of social learning When you are with members of a group who share your culture, you do not have to think about it, for you are all viewing the world in pretty much the same way and you all know, in general terms, what to expect of one another” (cited from Nguyen Thi Tuyet, 2005:3)

And “culture enables us to communicate with each other since it is a shared language background (e.g., national, religious) resulting from a common language and communicative style, customs, beliefs, attitudes, values” (Levine & Adelman, cited from Nguyen Quang, 1998:3)

The relationship between communication and culture is a very complex and intimate one First, cultures are created through communication; that is, communication is the means of human interaction through which cultural characteristics - whether customs, roles, rules, rituals, laws, or other patterns - are created and shared It is not so much that individuals set out to create a culture when they interact in relationships, groups, organizations, or societies, but rather that cultures are a natural by-product of social interaction In a sense, cultures are the “residue” of social communication Without communication and communicative media, it would be impossible to preserve and pass along cultural characteristics from one place and time to another Culture is created, shaped, transmitted, and learned through communication The reverse is also the case; that

is, communicative practices are largely created, shaped, and transmitted by culture

This is true with any culture; communication shapes culture, and culture shapes communication

Hence, learning to communicate in one new language ought to assist with learning

a new culture

I.2 Communicative Competence (CC)

Hymes‟s original idea is that speakers of a language have to have more than grammatical competence in order to be able to communicate effectively in a language; they also need to know how language is used by members of a speech community to accomplish their purposes CC is the knowledge and skills which enable people to use a language effectively and their ability to actually use this knowledge for communication (Hymes, 1970) Hymes distinguishes four sectors of CC: knowledge of what is possible, feasible, appropriate and actually done

In Saville – Troike‟s opinion, in order to acquire CC, learners needs three components: linguistic knowledge, interactive skills and cultural knowledge

Linguistic knowledge includes verbal factors, nonverbal factors, and stereotypes in specific speech events, possible continuation of variables and the meaning of variables in specific context

Interactive skills include awareness of predominant features in context; choice and interpretation of forms, suitable to specific contexts, roles and relations; norms in communication and interpretation; communicative strategies to gain oriented targets

And cultural knowledge includes social structures, values and attitudes, and acculturalization

According to Nguyen Quang (1998:13), the components of linguistic knowledge and interactive skills, almost always convey awareness of cultural knowledge Thus, it is assumed that these three factors in CC, particularly in cross-cultural speech, overlap and affect one another

That is the reason why “when we teach a language like English to speakers who already know another language, we must be aware that we have to teach more than sounds, words and grammatical structures” (Wardhaugh, cited from Nguyen Thi Tuyet, 2005:5)

I.3 Face and politeness

I.3.1 Face defined

When people are involved in conversations, they individually consider certain variables, whether consciously or sub-consciously, that help them determine the form that their speech will take Goffman (1955) calls these variables “face”, and defines it as “ the positive social value a person effectively claims for himself by the line others assume he has taken during a particular contact” (Goffman 1955:213)

Brown and Levinson (1987), using Goffman‟s definition of face as a starting point, propose a comprehensive and, according to Brown and Levinson, universal theory of politeness Face is defined as the public self-image that all rational adult members have when engaged in spoken interactions, and it must be constantly adhered to They then divide face into two separate, but related aspects: positive face and negative face

Positive face refers to "the positive self-image that people have and want to be appreciated and approved of by at least some people" (Brown and Levinson, 1987 :61) In other words, positive face is seen as the desire that others like, admire, value or approve of one's wants (material or non-material), or the need to be accepted and liked by others, treated as a member of the group, and to know that one's desires are shared by others(Cutting 2002:45)

Brown and Levinson (1987) define negative face as a "basic claim to territories, personal preserves, and right to non-distraction - i.e freedom of action and freedom from imposition"

The negative face, therefore, "is reflected in the desire not to be impeded or put upon, to have the freedom to act as one chooses' (Thomas 1995: 169), 'the wants that one's

action be unimpeded by others' (Eelen 2001 : 3) and „the need to be independent, to have freedom of action, and not to be imposed upon by others‟ (Yule 1996: 61)

In general, participants will co-operate with each other due to the mutual

vulnerability of face However, it is not possible for conversation to flow without a demand or intrusion being made on another person's autonomy Certain illocutionary acts

are liable to damage or threaten another person's face Brown and Levinson (1987) define the performance of such utterances as potential face-threatening acts (FTAs) When confronted with the need to perform an FTA, the speaker needs to decide how it should be uttered

Brown and Levinson (1987) argue that the first choice to be made is whether the FTA should be performed on record or off record If the on record strategy is chosen, a speaker can either perform the FTA baldly without redressive action or mitigate the FTA

by uttering it with redressive action Performing an act without redressive action involves uttering it in the most “direct, clear, unambiguous way possible” (1987: 69) Conversely, performing an act with redressive action actually gives face to the addressee, making it clear that no face threat is intended This can be achieved by adopting the strategies of either positive politeness or negative politeness

I.3.2 Politeness defined

Politeness is one of the most important aspects of human communication: human beings can only exist in peace together if certain basic conventions of politeness are observed

It is widely accepted that Brown and Levinson (1987) produce the most comprehensive theory of politeness to date, the basis of which is used for analytical purposes in this thesis They argue that polite linguistic behavior shows up as a deviation against the rational and efficient nature of talk, but through a consideration of linguistic politeness, the hearer finds reasons for the speaker's apparent irrationality or inefficiency

According to Brown and Levinson (1987), positive politeness is redressive action directed towards the addressee's positive face, demonstrating that the hearer's wants or

needs are thought of as desirable In contrast, negative politeness is redressive action directed to the addressee's negative face, demonstrating the speaker's desire not to impose upon hearers by restricting their actions

The off record strategy enables the speaker to avoid the responsibility of performing an FTA For doing FTAs, in Brown and Levinson‟s opinion, the politeness strategies can be grouped into five superstrategies which are given in the chart below (the higher the number of the strategy, the more polite it is) And, “face”, the public self - image that every member want to claim for himself, consisting in two related aspects:

(a) negative face: the basic claim to territories, personal preserves, right to

non – distraction E.g freedom from imposition

(b) positive face: the positive consistent self – image or “personality”

(crucially including the desire that this self image be appreciated and approved of) claimed by interactants

Figure 1: Circumstances determining choice of strategy (Brown and Levinson,

1978:74)

Highly appreciating this chart, Nguyen Quang (2001) has some comments on its universality, especially on the sorting members two and three for positive and negative politeness Following is his proposed figure:

Figure 2: Strategies to minimize risk of losing face

(Nguyen Quang, 2001)

Politeness strategies are vitally important in communication and when speakers employ politeness strategies, especially positive and negative politeness strategies appropriately, they may obtain success in intracultural and cross-cultural communication Therefore, positive and negative politeness strategies are highlighted in this section in

particular and in the whole research in general

3 Off record

4 Do not do the FTA

2 With redressive action

FTA encounter

Do the FTA

On record

Positive Politeness Negative Politeness

1.Without redressive action

I.4 Positive politeness

I.4.1 Positive politeness defined

According to Brown & Levinson (1987: 101), "positive politeness is redress directed to the addressee's face, his perennial desire that his wants (or the actions, acquisitions, values resulting from them) should be thought of as desirable In positive politeness the sphere of redress is widened to include the appreciation of another's wants in general or to the expression of similarity between egos and other wants" Nguyen Quang (2003) states that "positive politeness is any communicative act (verbal and/or non-verbal) which is intentionally and appropriately meant to show the speaker‟s concern to the hearer, thus enhancing the sense of solidarity between them"

I.4.2 Positive politeness strategies (PPS)

According to Brown and Levinson (1987), politeness strategies are developed in order to save the hearers' "positive face” Holding that the Vietnamese are more declined to letting others know that they with to show their concern to others' problems and their willingness to give help whenever it is needed, Nguyen Quang (2004) suggests seventeen positive politeness strategies, of which the initial fifteen are adopted originally from Brown & Levinson In this section, the author would give her own examples for illustration Following are the 17 positive politeness strategies:

Strategy 1: Notice, attend to hearer's interest, wants, needs, and goods, etc

This generally means that a speaker should pay attention to a listener‟s noticeable changes, remarkable possessions, and other things that a listener wants a speaker to notice and approve of

E.g.: What a green thumb! When did you plant this tree?

Strategy 2: Exaggerate interest, approval, and sympathy with hearer

This strategy often occurs with many aspects of prosodies, identifying modifiers and exaggerated intonation, stress, and usually occurs with such adjectives as “marvelous”,

“incredible”, “devastating”, “fantastic”, “extraordinary” and with such adverbs (plus adjectives) as “really”, “absolutely”, “exactly”, “truly”

E.g What a marvelous voice you have!

Strategy 3: Intensify interest to hearer

Speakers wants hearers to share some interest with them This strategy seems to be

a good way of communicating

E.g You‟ll never guess what Tom told me last night

Strategy 4: Use in - group identity marker

Using an address form which includes the use of the second person plural pronoun

(you), or such generic names and terms of address as honey, darling, babe, mom, dad,

brother, sister, aunt, sweetheart These forms are used to soften the FTAs These can occur

in the form of questions, of requests, of imperatives

E.g -– How are you doing today, mate?

Strategy 5: Seek agreement

Another way that helps a speaker claim the common ground with a hearer is to seek agreement between speaker and hearer

E.g I agree Right Hoang Anh Gia Lai played very well last night, didn‟t they?

Strategy 6: Avoid Disagreement

There are different ways to avoid disagreement between speaker and hearer while communicating, i.e., using token agreement, pseudo-agreement, white lies, and hedging opinion

E.g Well, in a way, I suppose you‟re sort of right But look at it like this: …

Strategy 7: Presuppose/ Raise/ Assert Common Ground

This strategy is realized through gossip, small talk, personal centre switch, time switch, place switch, avoidance of adjustment of reports to hearer's point of view, presupposition, manipulations, presupposition of knowledge of hearer's wants and attitudes, presupposition of hearer's values which are the same as speaker's values, presupposition of familiarity in speaker and hearer relationship, presupposition of hearer's knowledge A good illustration of this strategy is the use of "You know ”

E.g I had a really hard time learning to drive, you know

Strategy 8: Jokes

"Jokes" seems to be a very effective strategy for communicating if they are used

in the right place, with the right people Typically, this strategy occurs between people who know each other well

E.g.: How about lending me this old heap of junk? (the hearer's new Cadillac)

Strategy 9: Assert or presuppose speaker's knowledge of and concern for

hearer's wants

This strategy is the way to help a speaker communicate with a hearer by indicating that speaker and hearer are cooperators and potentially force a hearer to cooperate with a speaker This commonly occurs with the use of "I know" from a speaker

This is also a very interesting strategy which makes a hearer feel comfortable

E.g I know you can't bear parties, but this one will really be good - do come!

Strategy 10: Offers and promises

Speakers want to show that they will help a hearer obtain the hearer's desire or needs by giving offers and promises which are a natural outcome of choosing this strategy Also, a speaker wants to show good intentions towards a hearer's positive face needs

E.g I'll drop by sometime next week

Strategy 11: Be optimistic

Speaker wants to show good intentions of helping a hearer obtain his/her desires by asking the hearer to cooperate with the speaker in carrying out a tacit commitment This means that a speaker not only wants to show good intentions, but also wants both hearer and speaker to complete an action to carry out this commitment

E.g I've come to borrow a cup of flour

Strategy 12: Include both speaker and hearer in the activity

By using “we”, “us”, “let's” in the process of communication, the speaker shows

that the speaker and the hearer are cooperative, and the speaker wants the hearer to cooperate with him/her in doing something

E.g Let's go, then

Strategy 13: Give (or ask for reasons)

In Britain, giving or asking for reasons seems to be very common and polite This

strategy often occurs with such phrases as “why not”, “why don't”, “why shouldn't”

E.g.: Why don't we go camping?

Strategy 14: Assume or assert reciprocity

Giving evidence of reciprocal rights or obligations between the speaker and the hearer may claim the existence of cooperation between the speaker and the hearer

E.g Mom, if you help me with my math homework, I will clean our house after class tomorrow

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

Gifts here are not only material gifts, but also are spiritual gifts

E.g I've just been out shopping Here's a hot dog for you, Sarah Like it?

Strategy 16: Encourage

By using strategy 16, the speaker implicitly praises the hearer (as if you can do this) tries to avert the hearer's fear, makes hearers concentrate on positive factors, possibilities

E.g.: Don't worry Everything will be OK

Strategy 17: Ask personal questions

This strategy seems very much in use in oriental cultures where private expression may be seen as a sign of trusting each other People will only tell others about their own secrets when they trust their contacts By making others answer personal questions, speakers may gain much trust from hearers

E.g Are you married?

I.5 Negative politeness

I.5.1 Negative politeness defined

According to Brown & Levinson (1987:129), negative politeness refers to

"redressive action addressed to the addressee's negative face: his desire to have his freedom of action unhindered and his attention unimpeded" Agreeing with Brown & Levinson, on definition of negative politeness, Nguyen Quang (2003) emphasizes that

"negative politeness is any communicative act (verbal and/or non-verbal) which is intentionally and appropriately meant to show that the speaker does not want to impinge upon the addressee's privacy, thus maintaining the sense of distance between them"

I.5.2 Negative politeness strategies

It is believed that there are eleven negative politeness strategies to avoid the FTAs

Strategy 1: Be conventionally indirect

Speaker uses this strategy when he/she faces opposing tensions which can be solved by compromise, by conventional indirectness, and by the use of phrases and

sentences that have contextually unambiguous meanings, such as “can you”, “could you”,

“what on earth”, “whatever you do”, “what the hell” “why for God’s sake?”

E.g.: Could you tell me the time, please?

Strategy 2: Question and hedge

Using question and hedge make a hearer feel less threatened, and more polite This strategy derives from the want not to presume and force oneself on a hearer A hedge can

be a particle, a word, a phrase that modifies the degree of membership, such as “sort of”,

“kind of”, “rather”, “quite”, “technically”, “think”

E.g I think Henry is coming

Strategy 3: Be pessimistic

This strategy is commonly found in redressing a hearer's negative face by the clear expression of the doubt that the conditions for the appropriateness of a speaker's speech act obtain This strategy can be carried out through namely, doing indirect requests with

assertions of felicitous conditions like: “Couldn't possibly”, “by any chance”; or using subjunctives like: “Could (Would, Might) you please ?”

E.g.: Could you jump over that five foot fence?

Strategy 4 Minimize the imposition

The speaker does not want to impose too much on the hearer, so, the speaker uses this strategy By using this strategy, the speaker lets the hearer understand that there is no imposition or very little imposition on the hearer even whether the hearer could do

something for the speaker or not This usually occurs with such sentences as “I wonder

if ”, “I just want to ask you if ”, "I am well aware of the trouble when…”, “I know”

E.g I just want to ask you if I can borrow your paper

Strategy 5: Give deference

When using this strategy, the speaker wants to show either he/ she humbles and abases himself/herself or he/she raises the status of the hearer (by treating the hearer as a superior) This occurs between a speaker who has lower social status than the hearer and the hearer who has higher social status than the speaker Giving deference can be realized

through the use of such phrases as “excuse me”, “sir”, “sorry to bother you but ”,

“please accept my apology”, “sir….”, “I must be excused”, “Miss ”

E.g Excuse me, sir, but would you mind if I closed the window?

Strategy 6: Apologize

By using this strategy, the speaker wants to show his/her reluctance to threaten the hearer's negative face and thereby partially redress his/her action This strategy can be realized through the use of hesitation and humbleness, and in such ways as to show regret

or reluctance such as “I wouldn't normally ask you but ”, “I don't want to put you in any

sort of trouble but ”, “I am sure that you don't like it but ”, “I hope this doesn't bother you too much”

E.g I'm sorry to bother you

Strategy 7: Impersonalize speaker and hearer

When using this strategy, the speaker does not want to put any imposition on the hearer Therefore, the speaker avoids using the pronouns “I” and “you” This strategy is realized by the use of performative verbs and impersonal verbs

E.g It's important that you finish the work on time

Strategy 8: State the FTA as a general rule

E.g.: - Passengers will please refrain from flushing toilets on the train

Strategy 9: Nominalize

In English, the more nouns used the more polite people are Therefore, English people are in more favor of using nouns So, when we nominalize the subject, the sentences become more formal

E.g: Your good performance on the examinations impressed us favorably

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

The speaker wants to show his/her redress to the hearer by claiming his/her indebtness to the hearer by means of the following expressions:

- I would be grateful to you…

- I would be greatly indebted to you

- I could easily do it for you

- This wouldn't cause me any trouble

Strategy 11 - Avoid asking personal questions

E.g.: It is cold, isn't it?

Being aware of the importance of positive and negative politeness strategies in cross - cultural communication, in the next chapter the author will study them through the conversational activities of the course book "Inside Out" (pre-intermediate) so that learners can avoid misinterpretation during daily life cross - cultural interactions

CHAPTER II

POSITIVE AND NEGATIVE POLITENESS STRATEGIES

IN THE CONVERSATIONAL ACTIVITIES

OF THE COURSEBOOK “INSIDE OUT” (PRE-INTERMEDIATE)

II.1 The overview of politeness strategies in “Inside Out” (Pre-intermediate)

“Inside Out” (Pre-intermediate) was written by Sue Kay, Vaughan Jones and Philip Kerr and published by Macmillan in 2002 “Inside Out” (Pre-intermediate) is a classroom-

tested English course designed to develop real life communicative skills and powers of self-expression This coursebook provides a thoroughly enjoyable and lively course for adults and young adults built around structured work on grammar and lexis, planned speaking tasks and engaging writing and listening texts The main grammar and language functions are presented clearly and practiced through anecdotal activities and personalizations

People have different points of view about “polite” What is considered “polite” in one place or in one country can be “not polite”, and even “impolite” in other places or countries In this study, the author puts no value judgment on any interactional behavior, but takes a deep insight into politeness strategies which are used by native speakers and the frequency of each strategy; and based on the findings, she would suggest some tips for using politeness strategies in English

In the second part of this chapter, the author focuses on analyzing the frequencies of

positive, negative and mixed politeness strategies used in “Inside Out” (Pre-intermediate)

II.2 The frequency of positive, negative and mixed politeness strategies used in

“Inside Out” (Pre-intermediate)

II.2.1 Sampling process

The process of collecting data includes three steps First, all utterances in conversations appearing in every unit, especially in the listening tasks, are picked up After that, all contexts with S&H role relationships are considered with the help of a group of Vietnamese teachers of English and some native speakers in order to discover the ones that

are mostly approved of as “natural” At this stage, 133 utterances have been selected Then, all statistics needed for this study are calculated and grouped into 7 categories which are to

be presented in the following parts of the study

II.2.2 Balance of positive, negative and mixed politeness strategies

Positive politeness strategies Negative politeness

strategies

Mixed politeness strategies

Table 1: The statistics of positive, negative and mixed politeness strategies

The statistics are converted into Pie - Chart 1 as follows:

Pie-Chart 1 The frequency of positive, negative and mixed politeness strategies

It is readily observed that the frequency of positive politeness strategies is quite high,

whereas the frequency of negative and mixed strategies is rather low “Inside Out”

(Pre-intermediate) contains many more positive politeness strategies than negative and mixed ones This seems to suggest that the American, in these conversations, are more declined to positive politeness strategies They seem to consider positive politeness as a more appropriate way for the S-H role relationships under study Similarly, according to Nguyen

Quang (2002), the Vietnamese tend to be more in favour of positive politeness in social and familial interactions They wish to show their concern to or for others, and thus, narrow the distance between S and H Therefore, this similarity should be observed so that students can be more confident when engaged in Vietnamese-American cross-cultural communicative

II.2.3 Analysis of positive politeness strategies

Based on 17 positive politeness strategies, the utterances in the conversations are grouped into 17 categories Following are the positive politeness strategies performed in the selected conversations:

12 Include both S & H in the activity 5 4.31

The statistics are converted in Chart 1 as follows: Table 2: The statistics of positive politeness strategies

4.31

18.97 22.41

10.34

4.31 13.79

0.86 0.86

5.17 2.59 4.31

1.72 0.86

Chart 1 The frequency of positive politeness strategies

The chart reveals that strategies 1,8,9,14,17 are the least used and occur at the same rate (0,86).Whereas, strategies 3,4,5,7 are used most This seems to show that the American feel more comfortable using strategies 3,4,5,7 For example:

(Strategy 3 - Unit 5)

This strategy is used when S wants H to share interest with him/her It can also help

intensify interest for H In addition, this seems to be a good way to attract H‟s attention

It is clear that strategy 4 (Use in - group identity markers) is the most preferred with the highest rate of 22.41% It appears the most effective in expressing in-group

membership For example:

- Pauline, congratulations! (Unit 4)

- Kent, how long have you been interested in crop circles? (Unit 18)

- Mum! It‟s me (Unit 14)

The proper names “Pauline” and “Kent” used by S and H imply that they know each other well „Mum” in the third example is there for the expression of a very close and intimate relationship between S and H

It is worthy of note that, in the conversations under study, people rarely use strategies 1,8,9,14,17 It might be the case that:

Strategy 1, “Notice, attend to H”, seems too much for the expression of concern to others and this may make H feel intruded

The same can be said about strategy 8 “joke”: rarely can we see jokes or funny stories during a negotiation The setting or context does not seem suitable for joking There

is only one example found of this strategy:

- Excellent And what about girls? (Unit 8)

Strategies 9 (Assert S's knowledge and concern for H's wants), 14 (Assume or assert reciprocity) and 17 (Ask personal questions) seem to make S feel less confident because they are used only in some situations

II.2.4 Analysis of negative politeness strategies

The followings are eleven negative politeness strategies to avoid the FTAs

7 Impersonalize S &H, avoid the pronoun I, you 1 1.37

10 Go on record as incurring a debt, or as not indebting H 2 2.74

Table 3: The statistics of negative politeness strategies

The statistics are converted into Chart 2 as follows:

13.7 52.05

10.96 1.37

10.96 6.85 1.37

Among 11 negative politeness strategies, strategy 2 is used most with a very high rate (52,05%) Strategy 1,3,5,6,10 are in limited use Whereas, no one uses strategy 8,

strategy 9 and strategy 11

Let us have a look at some examples of strategy 2(Questions, hedge)

- Do you think you‟ve learnt anything from your experience in Ozone? (Unit 8)

- Excuse me! Yes, you What are you doing here? (Unit 10)

- Um, to be honest, I‟m completely knackered! (Unit 13)

- Oh, yes I think he‟s the most wonderful person in the world and I know absolutely everything about him (Unit 4)

In these cases, the speakers use “hedge, question” to show little imposition on the hearers “Do you think…”, “Excuse me!” and “Um, to be honest” usually occur in conversations to show the hesitation to speak out about something, to imply that S does not want to do any harm to H or at least that S is trying to save H‟s face “I think” in the fourth example can be understood as “This is my own idea You can agree with me or not

I just want to tell you my idea.” And, “Oh, yes” may imply that “You are right, I agree with you” This makes the utterance more tentative and may make it is easier to accept the following phrase We may call it a “sweetener” Therefore, “Questions, hedge” strategy is quite effective in making people feel more comfortable

Next, we will see the reason why strategy 8 (State the FTA as the general rule), strategy 9 (Nominalize) and strategy 11 (Avoid asking personal questions) are not mentioned

Let us take strategy 8 (State the FTA as the general rule) as an example

- Patients please wear uniforms at the time of the treatment

In the context of daily conversations, “state the FTA as the general rule” is considered to

be very formal This strategy is good at creating a distance between H and S Therefore, it

is mainly used in certain situations for informing or for warning

One more example is strategy 9 (Nominalize)