Politeness strategies manifested in conversations in the quiet america = chiến dịch lịch sử thể hiện qua lời hội thoại trong tác phẩm người mỹ trầm lặng

20 Chapter 2: Politeness strategies manifested in conversations in “The Quiet American”.. 22 2.1 Positive politeness strategies manifested in The Quiet“The Quiet American” 22 2.1.1 Strat

This study would have never been finished without the support of my dedicate teachers, friends and family members

First of all, I would like to express my deep gratitude to my supervisor,

Dr Ng« §×nh Ph¬ng, who has given me detailed instructions, valuable advice and critical comments during my researching process.

I am indebted to my teachers in the Faculty of Foreign Languages, especially Mr TrÇn B¸ TiÕn, who have provided me with many useful references I would also like to say thank-you to Ms Mindy Schout and Ms Sandy Gannon who have helped me edit my writing.

Last but not least, my sincere gratefulness goes to my family and my friends whose love and encouragement have contributed to the completeness

of the thesis.

Vinh, May 15, 2005

§Æng ThÞ M¹nh

R : Absolute ranking of imposition

Table of contents

Page

Acknowledgement i

Abbreviations ii

Abstract vi

Part A: Introduction 1

1 Rationale 1

2 Aims of the study 2

3 Scope of the stud 2

4 Methods of the study 3

5 Design of the study 3

Part B: Development . 4

Chapter 1: Theoretical background 4

1.1 Speech acts . 4

1.1.1 Definition of speech act 5

1.1.2 Locutionary, illocutionnary and perlocutionary 5

1.1.3 Classification of speech acts 6

1.2 Politeness 8

1.2.1 What is politeness? 8

1.2.2 The conversational-maxim view on politeness 9

1.2.2.1 Politeness rules 9

1.2.2.2 Politeness maxims 10

1.2.3 The face-management view on politeness 15

1.2.3.1 Face 15

1.2.3.2 Face threatening acts 16

1.2.3.3 Politeness strategies 17

1.2.3.3.1 Positive politeness strategies 18

1.2.3.3.2 Negative politeness strategies 19

1.2.3.4 Social factors affecting politeness 20

Chapter 2: Politeness strategies manifested in conversations in “The Quiet American”

22 2.1 Positive politeness strategies manifested in The Quiet“The Quiet American” 22 2.1.1 Strategy 1: Notice, attend to H (his interests, wants, needs, goods) 22 2.1.2 Strategy 2: Exaggerate (interest, approval, sympathy with H) 23 2.1.3 Strategy 3: Intensify interest to H 23

2.1.4 Strategy 4: Use in-group identity markers 24

2.1.5 Strategy 5: Seek agreement 25

2.1.6 Strategy 6: Avoid disagreement 25

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

2.1.8 Strategy 8: Joke 27

2.1.9 Strategy 9: Assert or presuppose S’s knowledge of and concern for H’s wants 28

2.1.10 Strategy 10: Offer, promise 28

2.1.11 Strategy 11: Be optimistic 28

2.1.12 Strategy 12: Include both S and H in the activity 29

2.1.13 Strategy 13: Give (or ask for) reasons 29

2.1.14 Strategy 14: Assume or assert reciprocity 29

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

cooperation) 30

2.1.16 Strategy 16: Encourage 30

2.1.17 Strategy 17: Ask personal questions 30

2.2 Negative politeness strategies manifested in The Quiet“The Quiet American” 30 2.2.1 Strategy 1: Be conventionally indirect 30

2.2.2 Strategy 2: Question, hedge 31

2.2.3 Strategy 3: Be pessimistic 32

2.2.4 Strategy 4: Minimize the imposition 33

2.2.5 Strategy 5: Give deference 33

2.2.6 Strategy 6: Apologize 34

2.2.7 Strategy 7: Impersonalise S and H 34

2.2.8 Strategy 8: State the FTA as a general rule 36

2.2.9 Strategy 9: Nominalize 36

2.2.10 Strategy 10: Go on record as incurring a debt, or as not indebting H 36 2.3 Politeness strategies manifested in "The Quiet American" seen from S-H relationship . 37

2.3.1 Lovers 39

2.3.2 Friends 39

2.3.3 Wife – husband

39 2.3.4 Acquaintances 40

2.3.5 Strangers 40

Chapter 3: Application 42

Part C: Conclusion . 46

References

Appendix

The study is aimed at investigating how politeness strategies manifested

in conversations in the novel "The Quiet American" It is compiled of threemain chapters Chapter 1 reviews the major theories on politeness: Lakoff’spoliteness rules, Leech’s politeness maxims and Brown & Levinson’spoliteness strategies Chapter 2, which is based on Brown & Levinson’sframework, investigates the politeness employed by the characters of "TheQuiet American" The research findings are discussed in two sections Thefirst section deals with the manifestation of each strategy The result showsthat characters of this novel mainly resort to positive politeness The secondsection is concerned with the variation of the proportion between positive andnegative politeness depending on social relationship It attempts to providepossible explanation to the proportion in each case Chapter 3 suggests somepossible ways to apply the study into language teaching The exercise givenhere will help to raise learner’s awareness of social and cultural elements inreal communication in English This thesis can serve as a start for somefurther study

Part a: Introduction

1 Rationale

1.1 Language is the primary means of communication It is used as a vehicle

to transfer information, ideas, opinions and emotions However,communication is not only an exchange of information, but also thesustainibility of a society Thus, communicative competence makes up alarger notion than language competence In mentioning communicativecompetence, Saville-Troike (1986:25) states that it involves three differentaspects: linguistic knowledge, interactional skill, and cultural knowledge(cited in Le Thi Thuy Ha 2003 – MA Thesis)

Hymes (1972) proposes that a speaker’s communicative competenceshould be the object of linguistic enquiry (cited in Carl James 1980:100).Learning a language cannot be separated from the practice of interactionalskill and the acquisition of cultural knowledge, since language choice as well

as the interpretation of language forms vary significantly depending oncultural and social contexts Vietnamese learners of English must know how

to use English under the norms of English-speaking cultures In other words,people who only master the English languge codes will definitely fail in realcommunication using English Communication is only successful when aspeaker is aware of what to say to whom and how to say it appropriately.Therefore, in any language courses, teaching and learning about languagechoice is as important as learning about language forms One of the most

important factors that determine the choice of language is politeness When“The Quiet

learning a second language, one needs to acquire the new culture s politeness’

framework, which often is very different from that of one s own culture’ ”(Celce-Murcia et al 2000:26) If politeness is studied in more detail, the moreuseful to language teaching and learning it will become

Politeness manifests itself in all forms of conversation: everydayconversations and conversations made by characters of literary/art works Themanifestation of politeness in the former form of conversation has beenlargely discussed so far, yet in the latter form, it is still left as an openquestion This fact gives us the inspiration to work on how politeness is used

in conversations in literary works

1.2 Literature has long been considered as a reflection of society and culture.

Language in literature changes remarkably depending on not onlygeographical, but also historical variations Thus, language choice in aclassical novel is always different from that in a modern one Politeness formsused by classical characters are, therefore, definitely different from those used

by modern characters In modern novels, the way the characters communicatehas much in common with what we say in everyday life So the study ofpoliteness forms in modern novels is particularly useful for teaching andlearning languages

For all of the above reasons, we choose “The QuietPoliteness strategiesmanifested in conversations in “The QuietThe Quiet American” to be the theme of thisthesis

2 Aims of the study

The aims of this thesis are:

- To emphasize the importance of politeness in human communication,especially in cross-cultural communication

- To study the utilities of positive and negative strategies in converstionsbetween characters of an English literary work

- To provide/suggest practical implications of politeness strategies inteaching and learning English

3 Scope of the study

Of all aspects of politeness, the study only deal with verbal ones.Paralinguistic and non-verbal factors are not discussed in here

This thesis focuses on positive and negative politeness strategies based

on Brown & Levinson’s (1987) theoretical framework Off-record politenessstrategies, politeness rules and politeness principles are beyond the scope ofthe thesis

The data analysis is based on utterances in conversations betweencharacters in “The QuietThe Quiet American” – a modern novel by the Englishnovelist Graham Greene This novel was written in 1952 and is set inVietnam It tells the story of a British journalist called Thomas Fowler and anAmerican named Pyle who is known as an officer of the Economic AidMission Both of them work in Saigon and are in love with the same

Vietnamese girl – Phuong The spinal plot of the novel is the struggle of thetwo men to win Phuong’s heart In parallel, it reveals who Pyle truly is anddescribes Fowler’s inner struggle to choose a ‘side’ of the war to support.Apart from that, the novel also gives us a vivid image of the south of Vietnam,especially Saigon in the 1950s – a vivid picture of social as well as people’smental life Conversations among characters of this novel reflect their innerfeelings and their cultural background so well that they can serve as a reliablesource of data for linguistic analysis in general, and politeness study inparticular

Most of the examples given in chapter 2 this thesis are taken from thisnovel, and reference is made when they are taken from other sources

4 Methods of the study

- Revision of theoretical publications

- Quantative method

- Analysis of collected data

5 Design of the study

The thesis comprises of three main parts:

Part A: Introduction

This part discusses the rationale, aims, scope, methods and design ofthe study

Part B: Development

This part is subdevided into three chapters:

Chapter 1: Theoretical background

Chapter 2: Politeness strategies manifested in conversations in “The QuietThe

of common sense” The other trend, followed by Bertrand Russell and others,was to view that everyday language “The Quietis somehow deficient or defective” Theyclaimed that it is rather debased, ambiguous, imprecise and contradictory; andthey aimed at refining the language by removing its imperfections andillogicalities so as to create an ideal language.

In response to this, Austin (1962) observed that ordinary people cancommunicate effectively and fluently with language just the way it is Weshould not give any effort to deprive the language of its imperfections orflaws; instead, we should try to understand how people could manage to makefull and effective use of ordinary language

This reaction of Austin was the inspiration for him to develop the

speech act theory, which was fully discussed and presented in the series of

lectures that he gave at Oxford University between 1952 and 1954 These

lectures were later collected and compiled into the famous book How to Do“The Quiet

Things with Words” (1962) In the speech act theory, Austin studies what

kinds of things we do when we speak, how we do them and how our acts

“The Quietsucceed” or “The Quietfail” He first explored his idea as the “The Quietperformativehypothesis”

Before the performative hypothesis was proposed, linguists believedthat people’s utterances were always either true or false The approach theyfollowed was called the “The Quiettruth-conditional approach” Austin took anotherview and considered “The Quietwords as actions” According to him, most utteranceshave no truth-condition; there are no statements or questions but only actions

He made a clear distinction between constative and performative Constative

means an utterance can be judged as either true or false, for example, the sentence “The QuietHe is wearing a red shirt ” is true if the color of the shirt that “The Quiethe” iswearing is red, but it is false if the shirt is of a different color Performatives,

however, cannot be judged in the same way Let us consider the sentence:

Will you marry me?

“The Quiet ” We cannot say whether this sentence is true or false,yet it should be best interpreted as the performance of an action - the action ofproposing marriage

So far, we have made it clear that people do not use language just tomake propositions about the world They also use language to perform actionsthat may, in some way, change the world The actions may be performed vialanguage explicitly or implicitly The former way creates explicitperformatives, whereas the latter creates implicit performatives

1.1.1 Definition of speech act

Originally, Austin (1962) claimed: we must consider the total“The Quiet

situation in which the utterance is issued – the total speech-act – if we are

to see the parallel between statements and performative utterances” (1962:52) Later, G Yule (1996) termed this total situation speech event“The Quiet ”

and simply defined speech act as follows: Actions performed via utterances“The Quiet

are generally called speech acts and, in English, are commonly given more specific labels such as apology, complaint, compliment, invitation, promise,

or request”.

Today, the term speech act can be used interchangeably with illocutionary act The notion of illocutionary acts will be discussed in the

next part of this study

1.1.2 Locutionary, illocutionary and perlocutionary acts

The action performed via an utterance always consists of 3 related acts:locutionary, illocutionary and perlocutionary acts Locutionary act is the basis

of utterance, the act of producing a meaningful linguistic expression Peoplewho are unable to form sounds and words to create a meaningful expression in

a language (e.g., those who are tongue-tied or foreign) will not be able toproduce a locutionary act

In producing a well-formed utterance, people always bear in their minds

some certain communicative goal, which is called the illocutionary act The

illocutionary act is performed via illocutionary force – the communicativeforce of the utterance For example, when we produce the English locutionary

act: I m studying , “The Quiet ’ ” we might want to give an announcement, a request or

even a refusal to a request These are the illocutionary forces which performthe illocutionary acts of this utterance.

The illocutionary act will have some effect on the hearer This effect isthe perlocutionary act or perlocutionary effect Under certain circumstances,the hearer will interpret the illocutionary force of the utterance and take some

appropriate reaction For example, when a roommate says, I m studying , “The Quiet ’ ” the

perlocutionary act performed by the other will be that he/she stop making

noise When the perlocutionary act is identical to the illocutionary act, thencommunication is successful

Above, we have examined the distinction among three dimensions of

speech act Among them, illocutionary act is the core dimension and it is usually assumed that speech act means illocutionary act The distinction is

necessary for accomplishing communicative effectiveness, because anindividual locutionary act may have different illocutionary forces and requiredifferent perlocutionary acts In order to have the best interpretation and react

in the right manner, the hearer needs to utilize many other factors than just thelinguistic expression that he hears

1.1.3 Classification of speech acts

Speech acts can be classified in several ways The first approach which

is made on the basis of grammatical structure sees that there are three types ofspeech acts: statement, question and command These classes coincide withthree basic sentence types: declarative, interrogative and imperative Forexamples:

You wear a seatbelt (declarative)

Do you wear a seatbelt? (interrogative)Wear a seatbelt! (imperative)

(Yule 1996:54)However, form and function do not always correspond with each other

A question-formed utterance may function as a question or request or even anexclamation The relationship between structure and function is not alwaysone-to-one Whenever this relationship is direct, we have a direct speech act;and whenever the relationship is indirect, we have an indirect speech act.Thus, an interrogative used to make a question is a direct speech act, whereas

an interrogative employed to perform a request is an indirect speech act Forexample:

a) What is the weather like today?

 I ask you what the weather is like today? (direct speech act)

b) Would you mind opening the window?

 I request you to open the window (indirect speech act)

Yule (1996) claims that generally, using indirect speech act is morepolite than using direct speech act

The second approach to distinguishing types of speech acts is based ontheir illocutionary force, i.e their function There have been different trends ofclassification based on this approach Austin (1962) put speech acts into 5categories: verdictive, exercitive, commissive, behabitive and expositive.Verdictives, as the name implies, are typified by the giving of a verdict by ajudge, a jury or an arbitrator Exercitives involve the giving of a decisionwhich either supports or rejects a certain action Commissives are speech actswhich commit the speaker to a certain course of action, e.g promising orcontracting Behabitives are the reaction to other people’s behaviors orattitudes to someone’s past actions Expositives include the acts of expositioninvolving the expounding of views, the conducting of arguments, etc

This classification was, however, later criticized by linguists such asSearl (1979) and Leech (1983) Searl claims that Austin’s categoriessometimes overlap For example, the act of describing belongs to 2 categories:verdictive and expositive Therefore, he suggested another classification thatdevides speech acts into 5 groups: assertives, directives, commissives,expressives and declaratives Assertives (or representatives) show thespeaker’s commission to the truth of the utterance Directives are aimed at

making the hearer perform some immediate actions Inherently, these are“The Quiet

face-threatening acts” (Celce-Murcia et al 2000:25) Commissives commit

the speaker to some future action and they are face-threatening to the speaker.Expressives show what the speaker feels and what his attitude is; declarationsare a special kind of speech act which makes some changes in the world bymeans of language, e.g dismissing, naming, appointing, etc

In discussing Searl’s categories of illocutionary acts, Leech (1983)shows how politeness affects speech acts of these categories According to

him, assertives are neutral as regards to politeness, i.e politeness is irrelevant

to them For directives, negative politeness is important; commissives andexpressives are intrinsically polite; and declarations do not involve politeness

In other words, assertives and declarations require no politeness, whereasnegative politeness belongs to the class of directive, and positive politeness isfound in the commissive and expressive classes

Leech (1983), from the viewpoint of functions as well as therelationship between communicative and social goals, put speech acts into 4categories:

a) Competitive: The illocutionary goal competes with the social goal,

e.g ordering, asking, demanding, begging, etc

b) Convivial: The illocutionary goal coincides with the social goal, e.g.

offering, inviting, greeting, thanking, congratulating, etc

c) Collaborative: The illocutionary goal is indifferent to the social goal,

e.g asserting, reporting, announcing, instructing, etc

d) Conflictive: The illocutionary goal conflicts with the social goal, e.g.

threatening, accusing, cursing, reprimanding, etc

(Leech 1983 : 104)Leech’s classification is based on the grounds of politeness, as he states

in his book He claims that the first two types are the ones that chiefly involvepoliteness Competitive illocutionary acts require negative politeness andconvivial illocutionary acts require positive politeness On the other hand,politeness is irrelevant to collaboratives and is out of the question in regard toconflictives This is a rather sensible classification of speech acts from theperspective of politeness

Yule (1996) shows the same view as Searl’s when he introduces thefive-category classification of speech acts: declarations, representatives,expressives, directives and commissives

Of all the ways to classify speech acts mentioned aboved, Searl’s(1979) is the most widely discussed and agreed

1.2 Politeness

1.2.1 What is politeness?

Politeness is one of the essential demands of social interaction,especially in the civilized society In general, politeness means showingconsideration to others It can be manifested through general social behaviors(for example, holding a door open to allow someone else to pass through) aswell as by linguistic means In order to be linguistically polite, it is necessarythat people speak appropriately according to the kind of relationship betweenthem and to the circumstance under which they are communicating.

Politeness is considered one of the features of discourse, an undeniableelement of linguistic communication Thus, it has become an increasinglymore significant matter of pragmatics – the study of speaker’s meaning Sofar, in the history of pragmatics, there have been a variety of views on thenotion of politeness Fraser (1990) summarizes that there have been 4 majorapproaches to politeness:

1) In the pre-pragmatic studies, many scholars had mentionedpoliteness and considered it as a social norm

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

3) Brown & Levinson (1987) study politeness as strategies employed bythe speakers to obtain or to save “The Quietface”

4) Fraser (1990) sees politeness from the aspect of conversationalcontract

( NguyÔn §øc D©n, 2000:142)According to Yule (1996), politeness means “The Quietbeing tactful, generous,modest, and sympathetic towards others”

Of all the views mentioned above, the conversational – maxim view ofLeech & Lakoff and the face – management view of Brown & Levinson(1987) are most largely appreciated and discussed

1.2.2 The conversational – maxim view on politeness

1.2.2.1 Politeness rules

Lakoff (1973) sees politeness as “The Quieta system of interpersonal relations designed to facilitate interaction by minimizing the potential for conflict and confrontation inherent in all human interchange” (quoted in Tran Ba Tien

2003:28) With regard to Grice’s Cooperative Principle, she details herPoliteness Principle into three rules: Don’t Impose, Offer Options, andEncourage Feelings of Camaraderie.

Rule 1: Don t Impose’

This is the most formal politeness rule, which means not imposing onthe hearer (H) and not preventing him from doing what he wants A speaker(S) following this rule will minimize the imposition on the H by apologizing

or asking for permission when S asks the H to do anything that the H does notwant to S also avoids giving or seeking personal opinions and avoids referring

to personal matters, family, and habits Titles are preferably used in thispoliteness rule Rule 1 is used in situations when participants are greatlydifferent in power and status, for example a student and the Dean or a factoryworker and the President Thus, this rule takes effect when very formalpoliteness is required

Rule 2: Offer Options

In comparison with rule 1, this is a more informal politeness rule The Sfollowing this rule will offer options to H by expressing himself in such a waythat his opinions or requests are not likely to be contradicted or rejected.Options are offered by the use of indirect speech acts, conversationalimplicature or hedges This rule is appropriate in conversations betweenpeople who are not different in status or power, but are not socially close, such

as a businessman and a client; i.e when informal politeness is required

Rule 3: Encourage the Feeling of Camaraderie

This is a very informal rule of politeness, which is popular betweenintimates, close friends or members of a family According to this rule,indirect speech acts and hedges are totally inappropriate Any topic can bementioned and participants show active interest in each other, ask personalquestions, make personal remarks, show regards and trust by being open abouttheir personal life and feelings Rule 3 is used when intimate politeness isrequired

1.2.2.2 Politeness maxims

Similarly to Lakoff, Leech (1983) connected politeness with Grice’sCooperative Principle He sees politeness as crucial in explaining “The Quietwhy peopleare often so indirect in conveying what they mean” (Leech 1983:80)

Politeness concerns a relationship between two participants: self and other (S

and H) His politeness theory is based on the notion of “The Quietcost” and “The Quietbenefit”between the speaker (S) the hearer (H) But S also shows politeness to thirdparties, who is not H and may or may not present in the speech situation.According to Leech, politeness is the compensation for the cost that the S’sexpressions cause to the H In order to have a polite utterance, the S needs toadjust the cost – benefit balance so as to create balance in interpersonalinteraction Thus, politeness “The Quietrescues the Cooperative Principle” andmaintains good social relationships as well as intimate relationships HisPoliteness Principle (PP) states:

Minimize (all things being equal) the expression of impolite belief;

“The Quiet

maximize (all things being equal) the expression of polite belief ”

He introduces a number of maxims that he claims to be aimed at

“The Quietexplaining the relationship between sense and force in human conversation”

Maxim I: The Tact Maxim

Tact is the most important kind of politeness in English-speakingsocieties and it correlates with the directive and commissive in Searl’scategories of speech acts The Tact Maxim runs as follows: “The QuietMinimize the

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

increase benefit to H Whether an utterance is polite or not can be judged byputting it on a cost-benefit scale An example of such a scale is the following:

Cost to H Less polite1) Hang the washing out

2) Close the window

3) Come in

4) Look at that

5) Help yourself to the whisky

6) Have another sandwich

Benefit to H More polite

The implied cost to H can be reduced not only by changing thepropositional content of the utterance like in the above examples but also byusing “The Quietminimizers” The minimizers help to limit the size of imposition on Hand thus improve politeness This strategy has much in common with Lakoff’s

politeness rule Don t impose“The Quiet ’ ”

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

Less indirect Less polite1) Lend me your pen

2) Can you lend me your pen?

3) I was wondering if I could borrow your pen

More indirect More polite

Maxim II: The Generosity Maxim

The Generosity Maxim states: “The QuietMinimize benefit to self; maximize cost

to self” (Leech 1983:133)

In comparison with the Tact Maxim, Generosity is a self-centered kind

of politeness, whereas Tact is other-centered It appears that the GenerosityMaxim is the reverse of the Tact Maxim: when S means to minimize benefit to

self, S also means to minimize cost to other; when cost to self is maximized, benefit to other is also maximized Therefore, it is likely that both of these

maxims will apply in the same utterance However, there are still cases whenonly one maxim is observed without the observation of the other For

example, in a piece of advice like: “The QuietYou can get them for less than half the price at the market”, only the Tact Maxim applies: it is meant to be beneficial

to H but does not imply any cost to S

It has also been proven that the Generosity Maxim is less powerful than

the Tact maxim Thus, with the same propositional content: “The QuietI request you to lend me your pen”, it is more polite to say: “The QuietCould I borrow your pen?” than

to say: “The QuietCould you lend me your pen?” because the former expression flouts

the Generosity Maxim, while the latter flouts the Tact Maxim

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

Maxim III: The Approbation Maxim

This maxim states: “The QuietMinimize dispraise of other, maximize praise of other” (Leech 1983:134)

Obviously, saying pleasant things about others is preferable to saying

unpleasant things E.g paying someone a compliment like: “The QuietYou have a stylish shirt” is very polite, while saying “The QuietYou have a dirty shirt” is not In

everyday conversation, however, sometimes we cannot praise others for sake

of sincerity and honesty In order to be polite in such cases, we can chooseeither saying nothing or using indirect or evasive expressions We may say:

“The QuietHis shirt is not very clean” instead of His shirt is dirty “The Quiet ”

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

that “The Quietother” may be H or H’s dear things or people Therefore, it is not polite

to ask: Are those noisy children yours?“The Quiet ” or Did you cook this smelly dish?“The Quiet ”

Maxim IV: The Modesty Maxim

This maxim states: “The QuietMinimize praise of self; maximize dispraise of self” (Leech 1983:136)

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

considered to be less polite than saying: I didn t give them enough support“The Quiet ’ ”.However, the situation does not stay the same in all cultures The application

of the Modesty Maxim varies greatly according to societies and cultures InEnglish speaking cultures, the recipient of a compliment is supposed to showhis politeness by saying thank you, whereas in Oriental cultures likeVietnamese, it is best to deny the praise

E.g A: You have a very nice shirt

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

A: You have a very nice shirt.

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

Maxim V: The Agreement Maxim

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

expression of disagreement between self and other; maximize the expression

of agreement between self and other”.

According to this maxim, when showing agreement to H, S tends to use

a direct or even exaggerating way On the contrary, disagreement is usuallyexpressed indirectly or partially In the following examples, (2) is more politethan (1) but less polite than (3):

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

B: No, I think it was unintelligible

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

B: Well, but the end is not really satisfactory

3) A: Isn’t it a marvelous car?

B: Yes, it is

Maxim VI: The Sympathy Maxim

This maxim states that being polite means minimizing antipathy

between self and other along with maximizing sympathy between self and other Thus, it is polite to say a condolence like: I m sorry to hear that your“The Quiet ’

cat died” or a congratulation like: I m glad to hear that you ve passed your“The Quiet ’ ’

driving test ”

The set of maxims was introduced by Leech with regards to Searl’scategories of speech acts Each maxim applies particularly to one or morecertain kinds of illocutionary acts The Tact Maxim and the GenerosityMaxim are used to adjust the cost-benefit balance between participants of aconversation Therefore, they are appropriate with directive and commisivespeech acts, since directives are cost to H and commissives are cost to S TheApprobation Maxim applies to the class of expressives because an expression

of feeling is considered polite if that feeling is preferred by H And the otherthree maxims: Modesty, Agreement, and Sympathy are appropriate with

representatives: a speech act expressing a belief in such a way which showsthat S agrees or sympathizes with H is obviously a polite one.

On the other hand, not all the maxims are equally important Maxim Iappears to be a more powerful constraint on conversations than Maxim II, andMaxim III is of more significance than IV Thus, politeness attaches more

importance on other than on self Likewise, politeness towards the addressee

is generally more important than politeness towards a third party

Leech also notices that these maxims should be observed “The Quietup to acertain point” rather than as absolute rules, and over applying any maximwould lead to the feeling that S is being insincere or tedious

1.2.3 The face-management view on politeness

1.2.3.1 Face

Face is the central concept in Brown&Levinson’s theory of politeness.They derive this term from Goffman’s definition of face:

the positive social value a person effectively claims for himself

by the line others assume he has taken during a particular contact Face is

an image of self delineated in terms of approved social attributes – albeit

an image that others may share, as when a person makes a good showing

for his profession or religion by making a good showing for himself.

(Quoted in Thomas 1995:168)

According to Yule (1996), “The Quietface means the public self-image of a

person It refers to that emotional and social sense of self that every one has and expects every one else to recognize” Since face is emotionally invested, it

can be damaged, maintained or enhanced through interactions with others.Likewise, since face is the social self-worth of everyone, in social interactions,participants must constantly pay attention to each other’ face It is essentialthat every member of the society takes care of his own face as well asconsiders others’ face, because their faces are mutually dependent Ifsomeone’s face is threatened, that person can be expected to defend his ownface, and in doing this, he’ll threaten the face of the others Therefore, it isbest to maintain each other’s face

In everyday social interactions, people usually behave in ways that theirexpectations concerning their public self-image will be respected Thisexpectation is called face want Every member of society knows that every

other member has face wants, and every member is interested in satisfyingthose wants, either fully or just partially.

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

person’s positive face, according to Yule (1996), is the need to be accepted,“The Quiet

even liked, by others, to be treated as a member of the same group, and to know that his or her wants are shared by others”; and negative face is the“The Quiet

need to be independent, to have freedom of action, and not to be imposed on

by others” In other words, an individual’s positive face want is the desire to

be liked, approved of, respected and appreciated by others, the desire that hiswants be desirable to at least some others An individual’s negative face want,

on the other hand, is the desire not to be impeded or put upon, to have freedom

to act as he chooses, to be treated as a “The Quietcompetent adult member” of society

1.2.3.2 Face threatening acts

As discussed in the previous section, participants of an interaction mustattend to each other’s face If a speaker says something that represents a threat

to another individual’s expectation regarding self-image, he is considered ashaving performed a face threatening act (FTA) FTAs are acts that are likely todamage or threaten others’ face An illocutionary act may potentially threatH’s negative face if it indicates that S does not intend to avoid impeding H’sfreedom of action (e.g an order, a request), or threat H’s positive face if itindicates that S does not care about H’s feelings, wants, hopes, etc (e.g adisapproval, a crictism, an accusation) Not only may an illocutionary actthreat H’s face, but it may also have the potential of damaging S’s own face.For example, an expression of thanks implies that S accepts a debt to H, andthus threats S’s negative face, an apology indicates that S regrets doing a priorFTA so it damages S’s positive face

Normally, when speaking, we tend to save one another’s face We canattend to people’s positive or negative face wants Depending on whose faceand what kind of face is threatened in an interaction, we can employappropriate strategies to perform an FTA Those strategies are termed aspoliteness strategies

1.2.3.3 Politeness strategies

According to Brown & Levinson (1987), the speaker can decidewhether to perform the FTA or not If he feels that the potential face threat ofthe FTA is too great, he may choose to avoid performing it, i.e to say nothing.

If he makes a decision to perform the FTA, there are four choices: three record choices (bald on-record, positive politeness, negative politeness) andone off-record choice

on-If a speaker goes off-record in doing an act A, then there is more thanone possible interpretation of his utterance so that he cannot be held to havecommitted himself to any particular one For instance, in class, if a student

says : Oh no, I ve lost my pen“The Quiet ’ ”, he may want to make his friend lend him apen, but he is not responsible for committed himself to that intent Off-recordstrategies can be realized by the use of metaphor, irony, rhetorical questions,understatements, tautologies … All these kinds of means help the speaker All these kinds of means help the speakercommunicate the meaning in an indirect way

In contrast, if it is clear to participants what communicative intentionled the speaker to do the act A, the speaker can go on record in doing A Forexample, I can unambiguously express my intention of committing myself to a

future act by saying directly: I promise to come home early tonight “The Quiet ”

The first way of going on-record in performing an FTA is to do itbaldly, without redressive action This direct, clear, unambiguous and conciseway is called bald-on-record Generally, an FTA will be done in this way only

if the speaker does not fear any retribution from the addressee, for example,under emergency circumstances, or where the face threat is very small, orwhere S is of much greater power than H

However, such bald-on-record expressions are only appropriate in somecertain situations among social equals In most of everyday interactions, theywould potentially represent a threat to the other’s face and would generally beavoided Instead, people tend to do an FTA with redressive action According

to Brown & Levinson (1987), redressive action means action that “The Quietgive face”

to the addressee, and that attempts to counteract the potential face damage“The Quiet

of the FTA by doing it in such a way, or with such modifications or additions, that indicate clearly that no such face threat is intended or desired, and that S

in general recognize H s face wants and himself wants them to be achieved ’ ”(Brown & Levinson 1987: 69)

Depending on which aspects of face (positive or negative) is stressed,redressive action will take either the form of positive or negative politeness.

Such strategies of performing an FTA can be illustrated in the followingdiagram:

1.2.3.3.1 Positive politeness strategies

According to Brown & Levinson, positive politeness is redress“The Quiet

directed to the addressee s positive face, his perennial desire that his wants’

(or the actions / acquisitions / values resulting from them) should be thought

of as desirable Redress consists in partially satisfying that desire by communicating that one s own wants (or some of them) are in some respects’

similar to the addressee s wants ’ ” Positive politeness is oriented to thepositive self-image that H claims for himself It shows solidarity, emphasizesthat both speakers share similar wants, share common ground and commonknowledge and that they have common goals It attends to H’s positive-facewants and save H’s face by the assurance that in general, S wants at leastsome of H’s wants For example, S regards H to belong to the same group ashimself, and that they have the same importance, same rights and duties; or Smay show that he likes H so that, in general, the FTA which H performs doesnot mean a negative evaluation of H’s face

Since positive politeness is associated with intimate language usage,positive politeness techniques are usable not only for FTA redress but also as

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

“The Quietcome closer” to H

Do the FTA

On-record

4.Off-record

With redressive action

1 Without redressive action, baldly

3.Negative politeness

5 Don’t do the FTA

2.Positive politeness

Brown & Levinson (1987) list fifteen positive politeness strategies,which were illustrated by various examples from a variety of languages.

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

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

Strategy 3: Intensify interest to H

Strategy 4: Use in-group identity markers

Strategy 5: Seek agreement

Strategy 6: Avoid disagreement

Strategy 7: Presuppose / raise / assert common ground

Strategy 8: Joke

Strategy 9: Assert or presuppose S’s knowledge of and concern for H’s wantsStrategy 10: Offer, promise

Strategy 11: Be optimistic

Strategy 12: Include both S and H in the activity

Strategy 13: Give (or ask for) reasons

Strategy 14: Assume or assert reciprocity

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

Nguyen Quang (2003) proposes 2 more strategies:

Strategy 16: Encourage

Strategy 17: Ask personal questions

1.2.3.3.2 Negative politeness strategies

Negative politeness is defined by Brown & Levinson (1987) as

redressive action addressed to the addressee s negative face: his wants to

have freedom of action unhindered and his attention unimpeded ” Thus,negative politeness is oriented towards H’s negative face, and is aimed atpartially satisfying H’s want to maintain claims of territory and self-determination It manifests itself in the use of conventional politenessmarkers, difference markers, imposition minimizers, etc It gives redress toFTAs by means of apologies for imposition or interruption, of linguistic and

non-linguistic difference, of hedges, of impersonalising and softeningmechanisms and so forth Utilizing negative politeness, S shows hisrecognition and respect of H’s negative face wants, expressing his willingness

of not interfering with H’s freedom of action Therefore, typical features ofnegative politeness are self-effacement, formality and restraint, with attention

to very restricted aspects of H’s self-image, centering on his want to beunimpeded

Brown & Levinson (1987) list ten negative politeness strategies:

Strategy 1: Be conventionally indirect

Strategy 2: Question, hedge

Strategy 3: Be pessimistic

Strategy 4: Minimize the imposition

Strategy 5: Give deference

Strategy 6: Apologize

Strategy 7: Impersonalise S and H

Strategy 8: State the FTA as a general rule

Strategy 9: Nominalize

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

Nguyen Quang (2003) proposes an 11th strategy namely: Avoidingasking personal questions

1.2.3.4 Social factors affecting politeness

According to Brown & Levinson (1987), there are three factors that

determine the choice of politeness forms in communicative situations: the“The Quiet

social distance (D) of S and H, the relative power (P) between them, and the absolute ranking (R) of impositions in the particular culture” (1987:74).

Social distance (D) is a symmetric social dimension of“The Quiet

similarity/difference within which S and H stand for the purpose of the act”

(Brown & Levinson 1987:76) The ‘size’ of D can be defined by theassessment of how often S and H have interactions with each other, togetherwith the assessment of what kind of goods that S and H exchange (includingface) Measures of social distance based on stable social attributes make up an

important part of the assessment of D Therefore, mutual exchange of positivepoliteness can well reflect the social closeness.

The relative power (P) is an asymmetric social dimension of relative“The Quiet

power” That means the greater power H has over S, the smaller power S has

over H and vice versa P indicates the right of one participant to impose on theother in terms of plans and self-evaluation (face) Generally, there are twosources of power: material control (over economic distribution and physicalforce) and metaphysical control (over the actions of others) The relativepower of a person may originate from either source or both

The absolute ranking of imposition (R) can be culturally and

situationally defined by the degree to which they are considered to interfere“The Quiet

with an agent s wants of self-determination or approval (his negative- and’

positive-face wants)” For FTA against negative face, there are 2 scales: the

ranking of impositions based on the receipt of service and on goods For FTAagainst positive face, the ranking involves an assessment of the amount ofpain given to H’s face

Chapter 2: politeness strategies manifested in

Conversations in “The Quiet American”

On investigating more than 850 utterances made by the characters inthis novel, which are considered as FTA and contain at least one redressaction for that FTA, we figure out that politeness strategies were employedmore than 1100 times The investigation uncovers that all positive andnegative politeness strategies proposed by Brown & Levinson (1987) areemployed in these utterances The data shows that positive politeness occurs at

a higher frequency than negative politeness (43.64% of the politenessstrategies used was negative and 56.36% was positive) This result challengesthe presumption that between English speakers, negative politeness is morefrequently used than positive politeness because Western culture attachesmore importance on individual territory A possible explanation for thisphenomenon is that most characters in this novel have close relationships(friends, acquaintances) Furthermore, although they are from WesternCulture (British, American, French), they have lived in Indo-China,particularly Vietnam, for a long time, so they are more or less influenced byOriental culture, which is positive politeness oriented

The percentage shown in the following section is based on the totalnumber of times that positive and negative politeness strategies occur in thenovel, not on the total number of utterances

2.1 Positive politeness strategies manifested in The Quiet American“The Quiet ”

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

Using this strategy means that S takes notice of aspects of H’s condition(noticeable changes, remarkable possessions, anything which looks as though

H would want S to notice and approve of) For example, in the war, it is safetythat one always needs, so when saying good-bye to Fowler, the priest of the

Caodaist church wishes him luck and tells him to take care “The QuietGood bye and good luck Be careful of the snipers ” (p.50)

In the case H makes an FTA against himself (e.g he loses control ofhis bodily funtions), S should ‘notice’ it and express that it doesn’t embarrasshim at all This way of realizing the NOTICE strategy can be done by S’s

joking and teasing H about his action For example, when H suddenly gives a

belch, a good reaction from S may be: God, you have a bubble belly today!‘ ’

Or by H’s including himself as part of that FTA, for example:

We ate too much tonight, didn’t we?

We do not find any examples of this kind in the novel “The QuietThe QuietAmerican”

The manifestation of this strategy takes up 3.27% of the total times thatpoliteness strategies are used in this novel

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

In general, when employing this strategy, S tends to use exaggeratedintonation, stress, and other aspects of prosodic, as well as to use intensifyingmodifiers For example:

- I m ’m so pleased to see you again! (p 76)

- You have such an awful lot of experience, Thomas (p 102)

The exaggerations are generally done with emphatic words and

expressions such as for sure, really, exactly, extremely, absolutely, etc.

1.45% of the times that politeness strategies occur in this novel aretaken up by this strategy

E.g …He’s a doctor of engineering, you know what it is? He s a doctor of engineering, you know what it is? ’m (p 78)

Another way to increase H’s interest in the story is to switch back andforth between present and past tenses Following is an example taken fromBrown & Levinson’s (1987) data:

Black I like I used to wear it more than I do now I very rarely wear it now I wore

a black jumper, and when I wear it my Mum says “The QuietAh”, she said But Len likes it,

he thinks it looks ever so nice and quite a few people do But when my Mum sees it she said, “The QuietOh it’s not your color, you’re more pink and blue” (p 106)

Another feature of this strategy is the use of directly quoted speechrather than indirectly reported speech Moreover, S can draw H’s attention to

what he says by tags such as: you know, see what I mean?, isn t it?, etc ’m Toexaggerate the fact is also a useful technique For example:

- I’ve never tasted such a delicious cake Tell me how to make it.

- You always buy me lunch Let me do it for you this time.

In short, those techniques emphasize the sincerity of S’s good intentions inorder to redress the FTA

Like strategy 2, of all the times the characters in “The QuietThe Quiet American”use politeness strategies in their conversation, 1.45% use strategy 3

2.1.4 Strategy 4: Use in-group markers

This is one of the strategies that S can use to claim common groundwith H S’s conveyance of H’s in-group membership can be communicated bythe usage of address forms, of language or dialect, of jargon or slang, and ofellipsis

* Address forms: Mate, buddy, pal, honey, dear, duckie, babe, Mom, blondie, brother, sister, cutie, sweetheart, guys, fellows, etc.

E.g … All these kinds of means help the speaker But Thomas, dear, I do think of yours, too (p 118)

These address forms indicate that S believes there is no big power differencebetween himself and the addressee, so his requests or commands are notpower-backed Therefore, they are softened and H’s face is saved

* Use in-group language or dialect: In bilingual or multilingualcommunities, switching of languages can encode positive politeness Whenthe in-group language is used (e.g Chinese among Chinese Americans), itmarks personal involvement and thereby shows positive politeness; whereaswhen the second language is used, it shows negative politeness through themarking of generalization and detachment

* Use of jargon or slang

E.g Hullo, Thomas (p 154)

The jargon or slang terms can redress the FTA since they evoke all theassociations and attitudes that both S and H share towards the objectmentioned