Luận văn thạc sĩ a study on teacher’s politeness strategies in the EFL classroom

iii ABSTRACT This interpretive-qualitative research aimed at investigating a teacher’s politeness strategies used in the classroom, how they were recognized linguistically through her u

VIETNAM NATIONAL UNIVERSITY, HANOI

UNIVERSITY OF LANGUAGES AND INTERNATIONAL STUDIES

FACULTY OF POST-GRADUATE STUDIES

TRAN HOANG ANH

A STUDY ON TEACHER’S POLITENESS STRATEGIES

IN THE EFL CLASSROOM

(Nghiên cứu chiến lược lịch sự của giáo viên

trong lớp học tiếng Anh)

VIETNAM NATIONAL UNIVERSITY, HANOI

UNIVERSITY OF LANGUAGES AND INTERNATIONAL STUDIES

FACULTY OF POST-GRADUATE STUDIES

TRAN HOANG ANH

A STUDY ON TEACHER’S POLITENESS STRATEGIES

IN THE EFL CLASSROOM

(Nghiên cứu chiến lược lịch sự của giáo viên

trong lớp học tiếng Anh)

i

DECLARATION

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

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

ii

ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS

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

in the right the direction whenever he thought I needed it

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

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

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

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

Finally, I must express my very profound gratitude to my family and my friends for providing me with unfailing support and continuous encouragement throughout my years of study and through the process of researching and writing this thesis This accomplishment would not have been possible without them

iii

ABSTRACT

This interpretive-qualitative research aimed at investigating a teacher’s politeness strategies used in the classroom, how they were recognized linguistically through her utterances, and her students’ perception of such language The data were collected through non-participatory observations and semi-structured interviews The data analysis was based on Brown and Levinson’s politeness theory (1987) The results revealed that the teacher employed certain types of politeness in her teaching English, namely, bald-on record strategy, positive politeness and negative politeness As such, the teacher created a positive teacher-student interaction and supportive learning atmosphere Furthermore, the findings showed that most students found their teacher’s utterances appropriate and effective for their learning process Nevertheless, it came to the researcher’s realization that Brown and Levinson’s politeness theory could not capture all aspects of Vietnamese people’s politeness Cross-cultural communication was taken into consideration during the data analysis, accordingly, for better interpretation of the occurrence emerging in the classroom

iv

TABLE OF CONTENT

DECLARATION i

ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS ii

ABSTRACT iii

LIST OF ABBREVIATIONS vi

LIST OF TABLES AND FIGURES vii

CHAPTER 1 INTRODUCTION 1

1.1 Background to the study 1

1.2 Rationale to the study 2

1.3 Significance of the study 4

1.4 Scope of the study 5

1.5 Organization of the thesis 5

CHAPTER 2 LITERATURE REVIEW 7

2.1 Overview of Politeness 7

2.2 Root of Linguistic Politeness 8

2.3 Robin Lakoff and Politeness 12

2.4 Brown and Levinson’s politeness strategies 13

2.4.1 Bald-on-Record 15

2.4.2 Positive Politeness Strategy 16

2.4.3 Negative Politeness Strategy 18

2.4.4 Off-Record Strategy 20

2.4 Critique of Brown and Levinson’s politeness strategies 24

2.5 Teacher’s language in EFL classroom 26

2.6 Concept of perception 27

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

v

CHAPTER 3 METHODOLGY 33

3.1 Research design 33

3.2 Participants 34

3.3 Data collection instruments 34

3.3.1 Addressing research question 1 34

3.3.2 Addressing research question 2 37

3.4 Data analysis 38

3.4.1 Data Reduction 41

3.4.2 Data display 41

3.4.4 Conclusion drawing and verification 42

CHAPTER 4 FINDINGS AND DISCUSSION 42

4.1 Findings 44

4.1.1 Teacher’s politeness strategy in EFL classroom 44

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

4.1.3 Other findings 63

4.2 Discussion 67

CHAPTER 5 CONCLUSION 73

5.1 Summary of the findings 73

5.2 Implications of the findings 75

5.3 Limitations of the study 77

5.4 Suggestions for further study 77

REFERENCES 78 APPENDICES I APPENDIX 1 I APPENDIX 2 XXII

vi

LIST OF ABBREVIATIONS

CEFR Common European Framework of Reference

EFL English as Foreign Language

FTAs Face-threatening acts

vii

LIST OF TABLES AND FIGURES

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

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

Table 3.2 Coding scheme for the types of politeness strategies 36

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

Table 3.4 Unit of data analysis 41

Figure 4.1 Number of teacher’s politeness strategies used in the classroom 44

1

CHAPTER 1 INTRODUCTION

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

1.1 Background to the study

During the last six years teaching English for freshmen and sophomores,

my colleagues and I have witnessed a rather disturbing phenomenon in which intermediate and upper-intermediate L2 students were often reluctant to raise their voice in English in the classroom In retrospect, I found myself in the same situation as my students Were it not for the teacher’s encouragement or acknowledgement of my ideas, I would not have had the willingness to raise

my voice in class “Teacher’s encouragements would probably be the solution for my students”, I thought I then took into consideration this experience when planning the lessons I spent much time thinking about the language I would use in class, so that through my saying, I could encourage and motivate my students to speak more Still, I felt quite puzzled Much as I planned the language used beforehand, I failed to stir up the class atmosphere sometimes Why the students show little interest in learning English in class? Is there anything a teacher can do, besides giving encouragements, to stimulate the student’s interest?

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

1.2 Rationale to the study

Teacher’s language in EFL classroom has widely been considered the most important factor affecting the teaching-learning process It is because the teacher’s language is not only for classroom management but also for the process of students’ knowledge acquisition (Nunan, 1991) There are several activities universally conducted by the teacher in the classroom, such as giving the student’s instructions, motivating the class, and evaluating the students More importantly, teacher’s language in the classroom is also the major medium for L2 learners to understand the knowledge That is to say, in EFL classroom, English is not only the target for students to learn but also the medium for the teaching-learning process English used in L2 classroom is not only the goal of the lesson but also how this goal is achieved, in other words (Richards & Lockhart, 1996) ELF teachers, thus, play the role as the models for their students to imitate Krashen (1995) asserts that if the teacher’s language is used properly in EFL classroom, it would pave the way for the best input for the learner’s language learning process The appropriateness of the teacher’s language in classroom context could be defined as “how the teacher speaks” to make students feel comfortable, i.e they do not feel offended by the teacher’s utterances As such, the teacher’s way of speaking should not cause a

3

threat to the student’s face According to Brown and Levinson (1987) to mitigate face-threat, further, create good teacher-students interaction, the teacher is supposed to be polite in the classroom Politeness is a common social phenomenon and a classroom is one society in which communication occurs between teachers and students Thus, politeness should also be a moral code in the teaching-learning process In respect to language, politeness corresponds to the use of indirect speech acts or using certain lexical items such as “please”,

“sorry”, and “thank you” (Watts, 2003) That is to say, teachers’ politeness in

the EFL classroom can be recognized linguistically through the structural form and communication function of the utterances, especially in the event of teacher-student interaction

A previous study by Jiang (2010) on Teacher’s politeness in EFL class (a case study of Chinese EFL learners) concluded that politeness does exist in EFL classroom Furthermore, it was alos concluded that teacher’s politeness strategies did contribute to both teaching and learning Jiang, through his analysis, claimed that politeness in the classroom contributed to the effective relationship, created a friendly and lively atmosphere and will affect the mutual understanding and the relationship between student and teacher A similar conclusion was reached by the study conducted by Peng, Cai, and Xie (2014)

on college teacher’s politeness strategies in EFL classroom The authors asserted that teachers in EFL classroom are highly aware of politeness strategies and often used negative politeness and positive politeness as their strategies in the classroom Teachers preferred to use positive politeness as it helped the students to develop their self-image

In Vietnam, there has been little research investigating on teacher’s utterances in EFL classroom, let alone teacher’s politeness strategies in asking for student’s clarification That is to say, teacher’s use of politeness strategies

as well as its influence on the teaching-learning process has not been dealt with

4

in-depth in Vietnam, especially in the university context Furthermore, to my observation, freshmen and sophomores in my faculty tend to show more interest and enthusiasm in learning English with young teachers Such a phenomenon has posed a question of how young teachers employ politeness strategies, thus, they could establish a close relationship with students in the EFL class

1.3 Aims of the study

With a view to addressing the aforementioned gaps, this study aims at investigating how politeness strategies employed by one Vietnamese teacher can be a variable that enhances teacher-student interaction, further, improves L2 students’ learning in EFL classroom

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

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

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

1.4 Significance of the study

When the thesis is completed, it would be beneficial to teachers and L2 leaners It also documents several key contributions made to the research body

of politeness strategy used in EFL classroom To be more specific, the results

of this research should be seen as a useful tool for L2 teachers to reflect their use of politeness strategies in the classroom As a result, EFL teachers would

be more aware of their use of politeness strategies in their classroom and there would be some modification in teachers’ language used in the classroom As a consequence, the teacher could improve teacher-student interaction in EFL classroom, and the teaching-learning process would be more efficient

5

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

1.5 Scope of the study

This study focuses on teacher’s politeness strategies in the EFL classroom, in which both the teacher and the students are Vietnamese with Vietnamese culture That is to say, both the teacher and the students are non-native speakers and they use English as a medium for the teaching-learning process as well as for their interaction in the classroom context It should be noted that Vietnamese used in the classroom is also studied as the translanguaging resources Besides, politeness can also be expressed non-verbally, however, only the linguistic politeness will be analyzed and discussed

in this current study Moreover, L2 students’ perceptions of their teacher’s utterances during the teaching-learning process would also be the subject for discussion

1.6 Organization of the thesis

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

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

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

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

6

Chapter 4 – Results – presents the findings together with in-depth analysis and discussion of the findings – gives answers to the two research questions proposed in the introduction chapter

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

References and Appendices come at the end of the study

7

CHAPTER 2 LITERATURE REVIEW

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

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

2.1 Overview of Politeness

The English lexeme 'polite' lies in the Latin past participle form politus, meaning 'polished' The same is true for the French term poli, which is the past participle of the verb polir, meaning to polish Thus, it is understood that “The etymological roots of the terms 'polite' and 'politeness' in English are (thus) to

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

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

The pragmatic turn in linguistics dates back to the second half of the 1960s Yule (1996, p4) follows Morris in describing pragmatics as “the study

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

8

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

of linguistic research has moved from language disciplines, focusing on competence, to parole disciplines, emphasizing language performance The parole perspective brings context into linguistics, i.e the relationship between speaker and addressee, illocutionary effect, topic and motivation of communication, and due to this every text or discourse is considered a unique event of perception and creation

2.2 Root of Linguistic Politeness

We should first mention the theories of the “fathers of pragmatics” in brief to see the framework of politeness concepts that will be analyzed later on

in the text First and foremost, it is John Austin, the author of theory of speech

acts and whose lecture series named How to Do Things with Words (1962)

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

9

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

question: Could you open the window?

Building upon Austin’s work, Searle (1965) argues that “A theory of language is a part of theory of action” This could be understood as, since language is intentional behavior, it should be treated like a form of action Moreover, to understand language one must understand the speaker’s intention

as when one speaks, one performs an act Searle further proposes that all acts

fall into five main types: representatives, directives, commissives, expressives, and declarations

The aim of the speaker, therefore, is to make the addressee understand his/her intention In other words, to convey the illocutionary force, the speaker can use intonation, punctuation, and verb performatives (verbs, such as promise, invite, apologize, and forbid, that explicitly convey the kind of speech act being performed), or the illocutionary force can be assigned to the interpretation itself Sometimes the type of the Illocutionary Act comes from

the context of a communication, for example I am here by car as a reply to I missed my bus is an offer Due to these hints, the act is called Illocutionary, because the word illocutionary derives from the word illoquor, meaning unexpressed (Grepl & Karlík, 1998, p 419)

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

10

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

Conversation: Make your conversational contribution such as is required, at the stage at which it occurs, by the accepted purpose or direction of the talk exchange in which you are engaged. (Grice, 1975, p45) Grice further suggests four conversational maxims under the Cooperative Principle which are prerequisites for a successful and effective communication (Grice, 1989, p28-29):

The Cooperative Principle (abbreviated to CP)

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

QUALITY: Try to make your contribution the one that is true: i.e

RELATION: Be relevant

MANNER: Be perspicuous; i.e

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

11

These implicit parts of utterances are called conversational implicatures “The

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

politeness An example of this is when a wife tells her husband, “The Novák family are coming over for dinner tonight” and the husband replies, “It will be nice to see Jana” The husband’s reply floats the maxim of quantity, but is more polite than explicitly saying that he does not like Mr Novák Moreover, Grice himself maintains that some maxims are more important than others, and he also acknowledges that these maxims are often violated Nevertheless, they seem to form the basis of any rational conversation Grice also points out that his list of maxims is not final, and identifies other important maxims, e.g “Be

polite”:

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

conversational) implicatures (Grice 1991,p.308)

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

The term ‘linguistic politeness’ refers to strategies that aim at free communication, especially Leech’s Politeness Principle, and also at the self-realization and the self-defense of a speaker in a conversation The theories

conflict-of the above-mentioned linguists have shaped the perception conflict-of linguistic politeness, and they will provide a framework for the research in the practical part of this thesis

12

2.3 Robin Lakoff and Politeness

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

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

in order to reduce friction in personal interaction.” According to her, pragmatic competence consists of a set of sub-maxims, namely:

1- Be clear and 2- Be polite

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

Politeness usually supersedes It is considered more important in a conversation to avoid offense than to achieve clarity This makes sense, since

in most informal conversations, actual communication of important ideas is secondary to merely reaffirming and strengthening a relationship

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

friendly/act as though you and the addressee were equal)

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

13

According to Lakoff (1973), informal politeness is typical of women A speaker using strategies of informal politeness can sound indecisive, because s/he leaves the decision to the addressee

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

2.4 Brown and Levinson’s politeness strategies

One of the most influential, detailed and well-known models of linguistic politeness is that of Penelope Brown and Stephen C Levinson in 1987 It is

said that “perhaps the most thorough treatment of the concept of politeness is that of Brown and Levinson” (Fasold, 2000, p.160) Their book, Politeness: Some Universals in Language Usage, was first published in 1978; however, we usually cite the second edition from 1987, where the authors answer various objections to their theory Brown and Levinson were not only inspired by Grice’s CP and Austin’s and Searle’s theory of speech acts, but also by Erving Goffman’s conception of face (1967)

Goffman understands the construct of face in accordance with certain

English folk terms, like losing face or saving face, and defines face as “an image of self - delineated in terms of approved social attributes- albeit an image that others may share” (Goffman, 1967, p.5)

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

14

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

In their theory, face is two dimensional – they work with the concepts of positive and negative face However, the terms positive and negative are not subject to evaluation; we cannot consider the positive face to be better than the

negative one The terms are meant in a directional way (vectorial), i.e the positive face metaphorically aims outwards and the negative inwards, into the inner world of the speaker On the one hand, Brown and Levinson (1987, p.61)

define the positive face as “the positive consistent self-image of ‘personality’ (crucially including the desire that this self-image be appreciated and approved of) claimed by interactants.” On the other hand, the negative face is defined as our wish not to be imposed on by others and to be allowed to go about our business unimpeded with our rights to free and self-determined action intact To sum up, the negative face is the desire of every ‘competent adult member’ for his/her actions to be unimpeded by others The positive face is the wish of every member for his/her wants to be desirable to at least some others

It should be the interest of all participants in a conversation to enable each other

to save their face, minimizing face-threatening acts As Watts describes it (2003, p.86)

politeness strategies will therefore be those which aim (a) at supporting or enhancing the addressee’s positive face (positive politeness) and (b) at avoiding transgression

of the addressee’s freedom of action and freedom from imposition (negative face)

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

15

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

Followings are more explanation of each politeness strategy according

to Brown and Levinson’s theory

2.4.1 Bald-on-Record

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

There are two kinds of bald-on record as follows

A Non-minimization of the face threat

Non-minimization of the face threat is the standard uses of Bald-on record usage where other demands override face concerns S and H both agree that the relevance of face demands may be suspended in the interest of urgency

or efficiency This strategy is most utilized in situations where the speaker has

a close relationship with the audience

B FTA- oriented bald-on record usage

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

16

mutual orientation, so that each participant attempts to foresee what the other participant is attempting to foresee For example, in certain circumstances, it is reasonable for S to assume that H will be especially worried with H’s potential violation or S’s maintaining

2.4.2 Positive Politeness Strategy

Brown and Levinson (1987, p.70) define positive politeness as the strategy oriented by the speaker towards the positive face or the positive self-image of the hearer The speaker can satisfy the addressee’s positive face wants

by emphasizing that speaker wants what the hearer’s wants Positive politeness techniques are usable not only for FTA redress, but as kind of social accelerator that indicates the speaker’s wants to come closer to hearer

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

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

The strategy suggests that S (speaker) should take notice as aspects of hearer’s condition of the listener (the changes can also note, common ownership, and everything that listeners want to be noticed and recognized by the speakers)

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

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

3) Strategy 3: intensify interest to H

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

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

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

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

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

17

of group member, the speaker can use terms such as mac, mate, buddy, pal, honey, dear, duckie, luv, babe, Mom, blondie, brother, sister, cutie, sweetheart, guys, fella, etc In Vietnamese, the terms could be các b ạn, mình, các em, em yêu, c ục cưng, etc

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

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

possible for S to agree with him Seek agreement may be stressed by raising weather topics and repeating what the preceding speaker has said in a conversation (Brown & Levinson, 1987, p112)

6) Strategy 6: avoid disagreement

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

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

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

10) Strategy 10: Offer, promise

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

11) Strategy 11: Be optimistic

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

18

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

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

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

us stop for a bit”

13) Strategy 13: give or ask for reasons

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

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

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

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

14) Strategy 14: Assume or assert reciprocity

The strategy is done by giving evidence of reciprocal right or obligations

obtaining between S and H Therefore, the speaker can say “I'll do X for you if you do Y for me ,” or “I did X for you last week, so you do Y for me this week” (or vice versa) For example, “I washed the dishes yesterday so you do that for

me today”

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

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

to be admired For example, “I'm sorry for what happened to you yesterday.”

2.4.3 Negative Politeness Strategy

Brown and Levinson (1987, p.129) assert that negative politeness strategy is regressive action addressed to the addressee’s negative face: his want to have his freedom of action unhindered and his attention unimpeded Unlike positive politeness which is free ranging, negative politeness is specific

1) Strategy 1: Be conventionally indirect

This strategy is a way out for two circumstances which conflict with each other, namely the desire to not press the speaker on one side and a desire to proclaim the message directly without rambling and obviously meaning the other side Therefore, the strategy is conducted by using phrases and sentences that have contextually unambiguous meanings that are different from their literal meaning

2) Strategy 2: Questioning and hedging

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

3) Strategy 3: be pessimistic

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

One way of defusing the FTA is to indicate that the intrinsic seriousness

of the imposition is not great, though it is

5) Strategy 5: Give deference

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

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

6) Strategy 6: Apologize

20

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

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

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

7) Strategy 7: Impersonalize S and H

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

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

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

9) Strategy 9: Nominalize

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

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

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

2.4.4 Off-Record Strategy

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

21

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

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

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

2) Strategy 2: Give association clues

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

3) Strategy 3: Presuppose

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

4) Strategy 4: Understate

The speaker uses this strategy to express understatements; S says less than

is required and as result generates implicatures

5) Strategy 5: Overstate

The strategy is done by saying more than is necessary, or by exaggerating

or choosing a point on scale which is higher than the actual state of affair It also called hyperbole

22

6) Strategy 6: Use tautologies

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

7) Strategy 7: Use contradictions

The strategy is done by stating to contradict things By doing so, S makes

it appear that he cannot be telling the truth, thus S encourages H to look for an interpretation that reconciles the two contradictory propositions

8) Strategy 8: Be ironic

To be ironic means by saying the opposite of what is means In so doing,

S can indirectly convey his intended meaning, if there are clues (prosodic, kinesics, or textual) which relevant to the context

9) Strategy 9: Use metaphor

Brown and Levinson (1987, p222) state that, “The speaker uses a word that described a first subject as being equal to a second subject” The use of metaphor is usually on record, but there is possibility that the connotations of the metaphor uttered by S may be off record

10) Strategy 10 Use rhetorical questions

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

is by raising questions that leave their answers hanging in the air or implicated

to do FTAs

11) Strategy 11: Be ambiguous

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

12) Strategy 12: Be vague

23

According to Brown and Levinson (1987, p226), “The speaker may go off record with FTA by being vague about who the object of the FTA or what the offence is” This strategy is conducted by being vague about who the object

of the FTA is, or what the offence is

13) Strategy 13: Over-generalize

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

14) Strategy 14: Displace H

Brown and Levinson (1987, p 226) state, “S may go off record as to who

the target for his FTA is, or he may pretend to address the FTA to someone whom it wouldn’t threaten and hope that the real target will see that the FTA

is aimed to him.”

15) Strategy 15: Be incomplete, use ellipsis

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

Choice of politeness strategy

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

24

(Brown & Levinson 1987, p 73) Positive politeness is regarded as more dangerous than negative politeness since it is based on emphasizing closeness, and the speaker has thus to take the risk of expressing his belief that there exists

a friendly relationship between the participants

It could seem that the safest choice would be to always use the off-record strategy However, there are several reasons why speakers use other strategies

as well The factors that cause speakers to use less safe strategies given by Brown and Levinson (1987, p 74) can be summed up this way:

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

2 If a speaker chooses strategy that is usually used for FTAs with higher risk, the hearer could assume that the threat is higher than it in fact is This would work against the speaker´s intention to minimize the risk

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

on the following sociological variables:

1 social distance of the speaker and the hearer

2 relative power of the speaker and the hearer

3 absolute ranking of the impositions in a certain culture

It has to be noted that these variables do not attach to individuals but to

their roles in a given interaction

2.4 Critique of Brown and Levi nson’s politeness strategies

Though Brown and Levinson's theory is widely applicable, some weaknesses in their theory have been noted

25

Firstly, academia’s main critique of Brown and Levinson's theory is its claim of universality, or cross-cultural validity Firstly, many sociologists criticize that politeness theory is heavily based on Western cultures where individualism is highly valued compared to many non-Western cultures where group identity is valued over the individual One example of this is the Vietnamese culture in which the collectivism is normally of higher value than the individualism By way of illustration, the two key elements that underlie the notion of politeness and drive interactants’ behavior in the Vietnamese

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

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

of showing respect of people of equal or lower power The latter element manifests through the speaker’s behavior of care or mutual understanding with

a view to maintaining social harmony From these two elements, it could be concluded that, there is an emphasis on the conformity of individuals’ behavior

to social expectations In other words, face must be endorsed by the community; therefore, politeness is the conformity to these expected norms rather than attending to individual face wants, which is not sufficiently defined

in Brown and Levinson’s theory

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

of such definition is that the notion of ‘Positive-Negative’ or Internal’ seems semantically opposite (Bousfield, 2008) Thus, the aspects of face that Brown and Levinson’s are open to be viewed as polar or dichotomous opposite Positive and negative face oriented utterances cannot co-occur within

‘External-26

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

2.5 Teacher’s language in EFL classroom

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

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

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

in the process of acquisition; for classroom management teachers’ language may succeed or fail to carry out the teaching activities, while during the course

of acquisition teachers’ language is the major medium for understanding knowledge input that the learners are able to receive

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

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

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

(Brown and Levinson, 1987, p.76)

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

is regarded as a most favorable strategy in interpersonal relationship In other words, EFL classroom context functions as a community in which English is used as the main medium of exchanging knowledge and ideas, further, the participants in such context are the teacher and his/her students As such, politeness, especially politeness strategies realized linguistically through utterances in English, is one of the core elements helping promote teacher-student relationship The teacher, thus, should take into consideration ‘how to speak’ and ‘what to speak’ in the classroom

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

2.6 Concept of perception

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

28

information through the sensory receptors (e.g eyes, ears, nose, and skin), which involves human’s five senses This is also the process of selection, organization, and interpretation of stimuli by someone to be a coherent and meaningful picture of the world (Kumar, 2014) In other words, by passing perceptual process, people can interpret their idea meaningfully based on what they see, hear, taste, smell, and touch Harnard (2006) goes one step further as the author proposes two aspects of perception that are cognitive and psychology The former aspect emphasizes on understanding and making sense

of things, which includes reasoning, arguments and logic This aspect can be examined by seeing the results of how emotion, experience, and intelligence contribute to the understanding and responses Meanwhile, the latter one only focuses on the relation of experience that influences stimulation, and then the result of it affects the perception itself When it comes to factors influencing a person’s perception, Hadini (2014) claims that there are two types of factors: internal and external For internal factor, the perception of an individual will influenced by psychological needs, personal background, experience, personality, attitudes and personal believe, and self acceptance On the other hand, for the external factor it influenced by outside factors such as stimulus, environment, culture and believe

In this current study, L2 students played the role of the perceivers, while the perceived subject was the teacher’s utterances Regarding the former, various researchers have identified certain characteristics of the perceiver which can modify perception According to Randolph and Blackburn (1989, p 89), there are three factors contributing to the differences in perception, namely, which the individual has learnt, the motivation and the personality of the perceiver Robbins (1991) identifies five factors influencing on one’s perception, which are the perceiver’s interest, motives, experience and

29

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

As such, studying student’s perception of the teacher’s language use in the classroom means examining how effective and appropriate the teacher’s utterances are made sense of from the students’ perspective, values, cultural

background and motivation to learn English

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

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

Jiang (2010) investigated teacher’s linguistic politeness in EFL classroom His study had a case study design whose participants were one Chinese teacher and the students In Jiang’s study, the teacher’s politeness strategies were seen in respect to the process of teaching and learning activities

such as instruction, motivating the class, evaluating the students and classroom management Follows is the classification of teacher’s politeness strategies in the classroom:

30

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

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

“You can give it a try”

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

4) Managing classroom, e.g “Would you please stop talking?”, “Please come here”

or “Can you sit here?”

(Jiang, 2010)

Moreover, from classroom observation, interview with participants and data analysis, the author was able to draw a conclusion that politeness strategy existed in ELF classroom Specifically, positive and negative politeness strategies were recognized mostly through teacher’s activities of motivating and evaluating the students This means the teacher took in his consideration the students’ desire to be liked or approved As a result, these strategies significantly promoted teacher-students relationship, further, enhanced teaching and benefited student’s learning process Meanwhile, bald-on record strategies were seen through the speech act of classroom management, which indicates a close relationship between the teacher and his students

In his case study analysis, Zaenul (2014) claimed that teacher and students utilized all the politeness strategies proposed by Brown and Levinson (1987) during their learning process in EFL context The participants on his research were one teacher and twenty-eight students at grade 11 His research method took the form of observation in ‘natural setting’, which aimed at not interfering the teaching-learning process The result from Zaenul’s study revealed that among the four types of politeness strategy, positive politeness strategy was often utilized the most in L2 classroom He further asserted that teachers attempt to be fun and friendly to the students It was merely to

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

31

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

A similar pattern of result was obtained by Mahmud (2017) The author conducted a descriptive qualitative study, whose participants were a secondary teacher and her students in English class The results collected through audio recording, observation checklist and interview enabled the author to conclude that teachers use positive politeness strategy the most dominantly in their EFL classroom, further, this strategy helped create a good communication between the teachers and their student In this study, there was no evidence of off-record strategy used in the class; however, there was no conclusion drawn from such phenomenon

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

on the stated iressue Specifically, the research result showed the significant influence of teacher’s politeness strategy on the following aspects in EFL classroom: efficiency in the process of learning and teaching, respect communication between teacher and students, less imposition and directness in teaching-learning process, and more ‘togetherness’ between teacher and students