Rationale
Language has always been an indispensable part not only in communication among people who share or do not share the same nationality, social or ethnic background but also in recording and understanding culture Among languages all over the world, English is considered the most powerful language The number of people learning English has sharply increased and a variety of learning and teaching materials are available to meet their learning demands
In Vietnam, English has developed with an unprecedented speed and become a compulsory subject in schools, colleges and universities Although a lot of Vietnamese learners of English master grammar rules and accumulate as much vocabulary as possible, they often experience communication breakdown when participating in a real daily conversations In order to communicate successfully across cultures, learners need to be provided with cultural knowledge and the relationship between language and culture Additionally, learners must be aware of the hidden parts of culture including politeness strategies in daily social interaction
In communication, people use the politeness strategies to save hearers‟ face and avoid making other people feel uncomfortable
This research paper entitled “A study of politeness strategies and role relationships in the conversational activities of the course book “New Headway”
(intermediate) as seen by teachers of English at University of Economic-Technical Industries” is motivated by the above reasons Hopefully, the research would supply teachers with an insight into the politeness strategies under the influential role relationships in the conversational activities of the course book “New Headway”
Aims of the study
The study is carried out to achieve the following objectives:
- To identify and classify positive and negative politeness employed in the conversations of the course book “New Headway” (intermediate)
- To investigate how positive and negative politeness strategies are realized with reference to role relationships in the conversations
- To find out how UNETI teachers identify politeness under the influence of role relationships in conversations in NHW.
Scope of the study
The study focuses on analyzing politeness strategies used under the inference of role relationships in the conversational activities of the course book “New Headway” (intermediate) as seen by teachers of English at University of Economic-Technical Industries
Significance of the study
The study deals with giving a theoretical background on politeness strategies in verbal communication As stated in the study, politeness strategies play an integral role in daily communication Hence, the study is carried out to show the readers how the politeness strategies utilized in cross-cultural communication to avoid cultural conflicts
In addition, this study is expected to make contributions to raising the awareness of the importance of politeness strategies in real life situations for learners Practically, the study also supplies the readers with the analysis of the politeness strategies in conversations of the course book “New Headway”
(intermediate) as seen by teachers of English at University of Economic-Technical Industries.
Research methodology
Research questions
The thesis aims to address the following research questions:
- What are positive and negative politeness strategies used in the conversational activities in NHW?
- How do role relationships influence the use of positive and negative politeness strategies in the conversations of the course book “New Headway”
- How do UNETI teachers realize positive and negative politeness strategies under the influence of role relationships?
Research method
This paper applies qualitative method and quantitative method because these methods are supposed to describe the way politeness strategies are used, provides the answers to the questions of what types of something happened and seeks to how teachers realize politeness under the influence of role relationships in the course book All the considerations, remarks, interpretations, comments and assumptions given in this study will be based largely on the analysis of statistic data
Furthermore, survey research is the method of gathering data from respondents In a survey, the researcher selects a population Since population can be quite large, the author directly questions only a number of samples of the population That is why survey research is a suitable choice for a cross-cultural study All the considerable comments are based on the author‟s description and analysis of the data and questionnaires
The instrument used in this thesis is questionnaires which consists of 8 real-life situations, which are aimed at eliciting positive and negative strategies that are recognized in the conversational activities of the course book “New Headway” (the third edition) (intermediate) In these situations, various variables are reflected such as role relationships and positive/negative strategies
Data used in this thesis are collected from the course book “New Headway” (the third edition) (intermediate) The book was designed to develop the communicative ability in daily interaction for learners The thesis is only to focus on one course book All units in these textbooks are divided into four teaching sections such as: reading, listening, speaking and writing Furthermore, in order to answer the third research question, the researcher employs questionnaire
The data of the study are all utterances in conversations in every unit in the textbook, mainly in listening sections In order to collect the data, the author observed all conversational activities in the course book “New Headway”
(intermediate) to find out all utterances including politeness strategies Additionally, the author gives and collects questionnaires for UNETI teachers
Data analysis Step 1: All the data in this thesis are intended to be analyzed according the following steps:
- The researcher would study the course book carefully All utterances appearing in the units would be picked up
- The researcher would find out and discuss with colleagues and supervisor to identify which utterances consist of politeness strategies
- The researcher would classify the politeness strategies in these utterances
- The researcher would consult with supervisor and colleagues
- The researcher would interpret the data
- The researcher would deliver and gather questionnaires
- The researcher would analyze questionnaires
The study consists of three main parts: introduction, development and conclusion
This part includes rationale, aims, scope, significance of the study, and design of the study, which would make readers have an overall view of what is going to be presented in the thesis
This part is divided into three chapters:
This chapter deals with key terms related to the paper such as language and culture, speech act and politeness strategies
This chapter includes the methods which are exploited in the study The readers would be provided with detail of type of data, data collection, data analysis participants, research method and procedure
In this chapter, the writer would give analysis of positive and negative politeness strategies and role relationships found in the conversational activities in one course book “New Headway” (intermediate) as seen by teachers of English at University of Economic-Technical Industries
This part presents a summary of the study as well as further research in the future
PART B: DEVELOPMENT Chapter I: THEORETICAL BACKGROUND
One of the significant notions which have impressed a great number of linguists and scientists in the study of interlanguage pragmatics is the application of speech acts Throughout its developments, speech acts has been central to the works of several philosophers and linguists, such as Austin (1962), Searle (1969), Thomas
(1995), and so on According to Austin (1962), producing utterances is a part of, performing actions: in saying something, the speaker does something Beside Yule, in a pronouncement raised in his very influential book, Pragmatics in 1996, declares that “Actions performed via utterances are generally called speech acts.” (p 67)
In the initial distinction in speech acts made by Austin (1962, p 94-108), he introduces three facets among the acts one simultaneously performs when saying something, as illustrated as following:
(1) The locutionary act refers to an utterance simply constructed by a grammatical structure and a linguistic meaning A locutionary act consists of three related sub-acts: (i) a phonic act of producing an utterance in the phonic medium of sound; (ii) a phatic act of constructing a particular linguistic expression in a particular language; and (iii) a rhetic act of contextualizing a sentence
(2) The illocutionary act mentions to the real action accomplished in speaking
Example of illocutionary acts include giving permission, making suggestion, swearing and so on
(3) The perlocutionary act concerns the effect of the utterance upon the feelings, thoughts, or actions of listener
Let us consider the following utterance: “Don‟t talk” The speaker do not merely say the words “don't” and “talk”, which subsume the locutionary act, but you also perform the act of asking listeners not to talk
It is noteworthy that in Austin‟s points, illocutionary act is considered as the most important of the three acts because it is really what the speaker wants to achieve through the action of uttering the sentences There have been many attempts to systematize, strengthen, and develop Austin‟s theory Of all these investigations, Searl‟s scheme remains the most influential Searle (1976) states that all illocutionary acts are universally grouped into five types:
Representatives are those kinds of speech acts which tell people how things are The speaker represents the world as he or she believes it is, which make the world fit the world of belief (e.g complaints, accusations)
Directives are those kinds of speech act that express attempts by the speaker to get the hearer to do something (e.g orders, advice, commands, etc.)
Comissives are those kinds of speech acts that commit the speaker himself to do things (e.g promises, refusals, threats, etc.)
Expressive are those kinds of speech acts express speakers‟ feelings and attitudes (e.g thanking, congratulating, apologizing, etc.)
Declarations or declaratives are those kinds of speech acts that bring about changes in the institutional state of affairs (e.g pronouncing someone guilty or pronouncing someone husband and wife)
2 Theory of politeness and politeness strategies 2.1 Theory of politeness
Besides theory of speech acts, politeness is considered as one important aspect of pragmatic competence as well as the most fundamental backgrounds of this paper It is said that politeness is principal ingredient for success in interpersonal communication In spite of the fact that politeness is popular in all cultures, it is expressed differently in different cultures In everyday life, politeness is perceived as the use of relatively formal and deferential behaviour In language study, Watt (2003, p.39) contends that “politeness is the ability to please others through one‟s external actions” According to Thomas (1995, p.157), politeness is defined as a strategy (or series of strategies) is used by speaker in order to attain plenty of purposes, such as maintaining friendly, peaceful relations
THEORETICAL BACKGROUND
Theory of politeness
Besides theory of speech acts, politeness is considered as one important aspect of pragmatic competence as well as the most fundamental backgrounds of this paper It is said that politeness is principal ingredient for success in interpersonal communication In spite of the fact that politeness is popular in all cultures, it is expressed differently in different cultures In everyday life, politeness is perceived as the use of relatively formal and deferential behaviour In language study, Watt (2003, p.39) contends that “politeness is the ability to please others through one‟s external actions” According to Thomas (1995, p.157), politeness is defined as a strategy (or series of strategies) is used by speaker in order to attain plenty of purposes, such as maintaining friendly, peaceful relations
Regarding this important social role of politeness, a number of studies have also attempted to investigate this area in divergent paths Pragmatic approaches to the study of politeness began from Robin Layoff‟s work (1973) to Grice‟s Cooperative Principle (1975), Leech‟s principle of politeness (1983) and the recent approach from Brown & Levison (1987) During the vast development of linguistics, a multitude of different approaches to politeness have been proposed in the past thirty five years, and Nguyen Quang (2005, p 10) confirms that there are three main important approaches to politeness :
- Setting the ideal standard for polite acts to refer such as Grice
- Proposing the principles of politeness in communication in the form of do‟s and don‟ts like Layoff, Leech
- Specifying the necessary strategies to encounter Face Threatening Acts (FTAs) in communication as in Brown and Levinson, 1987
However, amongst outstanding linguists, most of the researches on politeness might be related to the theory suggested by Brown & Levison (1987) In spite of the fact that different aspects of this theory have been criticized by many researchers, it has been the preferred model focusing on the notion of politeness Consequently, the theory adopted in the present study is the model of politeness strategy offered by Brown and Levinson (1987)
Brown and Levinson‟s politeness model is founded on the notions of “face” - a term adopted from the work of Goffman Goffman (1967, p.5) states that „„positive social value a person effectively claims for himself by his or her self-presentation‟‟
Face mentions to the respect that an individual has for himself or herself, and maintaining that "self-esteem" in public or in private circumstances Furthermore, Yule (1996, p.60) claimed that “the means employed to show awareness of another person‟s face” Respecting the main points of Yule and Goffman, Brown and Levinson (1987, p.61) propose for people‟s face including two basic types of face needs or wants: positive face and negative face
Positive face: the positive consistent self-image or personality (crucially including the desire that this self-image be appreciated and approved of)
Negative face: the basic claim to territories, personal preserves, rights to non-distraction, i.e to freedom of action and freedom from imposition
In other words, positive face is the need to be connected and negative face is the need to be independent In some circumstances, the speaker says something that threats another individual‟s expectations of self-image (their “face”), though both speaker and hearer in conversation are made more aware of the preservation of their partner‟s face Positive face is threatened when an individual does not concern about their interlocutor‟s feelings, wants, or does not want what the other wants It is suggested that positive face is face needs, or the need to be accepted, liked, and admired, and to maintain a positive self-image Negative face is threatened when the speaker or hearer does not avoid or intend to avoid the blockage of their interactor‟s freedom of action Hence, negative face is face needs or the need not to be imposed upon In their theory, Brown and Levinson (1987) provide the definition of a face threatening act (henceforth FTA) When confronted with the need to perform an FTA, the speaker needs to decide how it should be uttered According to Brown
&Levinson (1987, p.65), it is admitted that:
An FTA is any verbal act a speaker (S) addresses to any hearer (H) with a specific intention which S intends H to recognize, this recognition being the communicative point of S‟s doing the communicative act Any utterance is always to some extent an imposition on H and S; any utterance is intrinsically face- threatening Some FTAs are more threatening than others
In general, during interaction, face can be lost, maintained or enhanced, and must be constantly attended, with the result that S and H cooperate in maintaining face in interaction, such cooperation being based on the mutual vulnerability of face.
Politeness strategies
Along with the model revolves around the notion of face, politeness strategies have been expressed by a variety of linguists such as Politeness Principles- Maxims of Leech (1983) and Politeness Strategies of Brown & Levinson (1987)
Nevertheless, the author would like to represent Brown and Levinson theory since it is one of the most prevalent theories and adopted by this research
According to Brown & Levinson‟s Politeness Strategies, the concept of
“face” plays an important role A set of five strategies to minimize risk of losing face is suggested by these two authors The choice of strategies will be made on the basic of the speaker‟s assessment of the size of the face threatening acts (FTAs)
These strategies are illustrated in the following figure:
Figure 1: Possible Strategies for Doing FTAs
(Brown /Levinson, 1987: 60) There is no doubt that politeness strategies are really important in communication When speaker employs politeness strategies, especially positive and negative politeness strategies appropriately, he/she may get success in intercultural and cross-cultural communication Therefore, positive and negative politeness strategies are highlighted in this section, in particular and in the whole research
Brown and Levinson (1987, p.70) state that “positive politeness is oriented toward the positive face of H, the positive self-image that he claims for himself”
Nguyen Quang (2005, p.27) also considers the concept of positive politeness, as
“any communicative act (verbal and/ or nonverbal) which is appropriately intended to show the speaker‟s concern to the addressee, thus, enhancing the sense of solidarity between them” This can be achieved by adopting by positive politeness strategies Therefore, Brown and Levinson (1987, p.102) sketch 15 positive politeness strategies applied by speakers in communication as follows:
Strategy 1: Notice, attend to hearer’s interest, wants, needs, and goods
This generally means that speaker should pay attention to hearer‟s noticeable change remarkable possessions, and other things that hearer wants speaker to notice and approved of
E.g You must be hungry, it‟s a long time since breakfast How about some lunch?
Strategy 2: Exaggerate interest, approval, sympathy with hearer
This strategy often occurs with many aspects of prosodies, identifying modifiers, and exaggerated intonation, stress, and usually occurs with such adjectives as marvellous incredible, devastating, fantastic, extraordinary and with such adverbs (plus adjectives) as really, absolutely, exactly truly
E.g What a fantastic garden you have!
Strategy 3: Intensify interest to hearer
Speaker wants hearer to share some interest with him/her This strategy seems to be a good way of communicating
E.g There were a million people in the Co-op tonight
Strategy 4: Use in-group identity marker
Using address form which include the use of second person plural pronoun (you), or such generic names and terms of address as, honey, darling, babe, mom, dad, brother, sister, aunt, sweetheart, etc These forms are used to soften the FTAs
These can occur in the forms of questions, of requests, of imperatives
E.g Come here, mate (honey/buddy)
The raising of safe topic allows S to stress his/ her agreement with H; and therefore to satisfy H‟s desire to be right or to be corroborated in his opinion One of the best ways to apply this strategy is “repetition” Agreement may also be stressed by repeating part or all of what the preceding speaker has said, in a conversation In addition to demonstrating that one has heard correctly what was said, repeating is used to stress emotional agreement with the utterance (or to stress interest and surprise)
Another way that helps speaker claim the common ground with hearer is to seek the agreement between speaker and hearer
E.g A: John went to London this weekend
There are different ways to avoid disagreement between speaker and hearer while communicating, i.e., using token agreement, pseudo-agreement, white lies, and hedging opinion
Strategy 7: Presuppose/ Raise/ Assert Common Ground
This strategy is realized through gossip, small talk, personal centre switch, time switch, place switch, avoidance of adjustment of reports to hearer‟s point of view, presupposition, manipulations, presupposition of knowledge of hearer‟s wants and attitudes, presupposition of hearer‟s relationship, presupposition of hearer‟s knowledge A good illustration of this strategy is use of “You know…”
E.g I had a really hard time learning to drive, you know
I had a really hard time learning to drive, didn‟t I?
“Jokes” seems to be a very effective strategy for communicating if it is used in the right place, with the right people Typically, this strategy occurs between people who know each other well
E.g How about lending me this old heap of junk? (the hearer‟s new Cadillac)
Strategy 9: Assert or presuppose speaker’s knowledge of and concern for hearer’s wants
This strategy is the way to help speaker communicate with hearer by indicating that speaker and hearer are co-operators and potentially force hearer to cooperate with speaker This commonly occurs with the use of “I know” from speaker
This is also a very interesting strategy which makes hearer feel comfortable
E.g I know you can‟t bear parties, but this one will really be good-do come!
Speaker wants to show that he/she will help hearer obtain hearer‟s desire or wants by giving offers and promises which are natural outcome of choosing this strategy Also speaker wants to show his/her good intentions towards hearer‟s positive face wants
E.g I‟ll drop by sometime next week
Speaker wants to show his/her good intentions of helping hearer obtain his/her wants by asking hearer to cooperate with speaker in carrying out a tacit commitment This means that speaker not only wants to show his/ her intention but also wants hearer and speaker himself/herself do an action to carry out this commitment
E.g I‟ve come to borrow a cup of flour
Strategy 12: Include both speaker and hearer in the activity
By using we, us, let‟s in the process of communication, speaker shows that speaker and hearer are co-operators, and speaker wants hearer to cooperate with him/her in doing something
Strategy 13: Give (or ask for reasons)
In Britain, giving or asking for reason seems to be very common and polite
This strategy often occurs with such phrases as why not, why don‟t, why shouldn‟t
E.g Why don‟t we go to the seashore?
Strategy 14: Assume or assert reciprocity
Giving evidence of reciprocal rights or obligations obtaining between speaker and hearer may claim the existence of cooperation between speaker and hearer
E.g I did X for you last week so you do Y for me this week
Strategy 15: Give gifts to hearer (goods, sympathy, understanding, cooperation)
Gifts here are not only the material gifts but also are the spiritual gifts
E.g I‟ve just been out shopping Here‟s hot dog for you Like it?
Nguyen Quang (2003, p.78-85) adds two more strategies, namely:
E.g.: You have my whole-hearted support
E.g.: Are you married or single?
Yule (1996, p.66) indicates that negative politeness strategy is strongly connected with “a deference strategy” In his views, it might be the typical strategy for the whole group on a particular occasion On the other hand, this strategy is concerned with what is called formal politeness Negative politeness, according to Brown & Levinson (1987, p 129), is “redressive action addressed to the addressee‟s negative face: his want to have his freedom of action unhindered and his attention unimpeded” Negative politeness strategies are oriented towards the hearer‟s negative face and emphasize avoidance of imposition on the hearer These strategies presume that the speaker will be imposing on the listener and there is a higher potential for awkwardness or embarrassment than in bald on record strategies and positive politeness strategies Sharing with Brown & Levinson on the definition of negative politeness, Nguyen Quang (2003) emphasizes that “negative politeness is any communicative act which is appropriately intended to show that the speaker does not want to impinge on the addressee‟s privacy, thus maintaining the sense of distance between them” Nguyen Quang suggests eleven negative politeness strategies, of which the initial ten ones are adopted originally by Brown & Levinson, they are as follows:
Opposing tensions: desire to give H an “out” by being indirect, and the desire to go on record and solved by the compromise of conventional indirectness, the use of phrases and sentences that have contextually unambiguous meanings which are different from their literal meaning
E.g.: Could you close the door, please?
METHODOLOGY
Research questions
The overarching questions addressed in this study have been formulated as:
• What are positive and negative politeness strategies in the conversational activities in the course book “New Headway” (intermediate)?
How are positive and negative politeness strategies used in terms of role relationships in the conversations of the course book “New Headway”
• How do UNETI teachers realize politeness under the inference of role relationships?
Thus, the first objective of the study is to find out politeness strategies under the inference of social factors employed in conversational activities in the course book In a broad sense, this research aims at constructing knowledge about UNETI teachers‟ identity of politeness strategies and role relationships in the conversations of the course book “New Headway” (intermediate).
Instruments
The instrument used to gather data is questionnaires The questionnaire in this thesis will be composed of multiple choice questionnaire (MCQ) and discourse completion task (DCT)
With the aim of data collection, the questionnaire is designed The first is a multiple-choice questionnaire (MCQ) which is plotted separately The MCQ consists of four suggested items which cover the conversations in the course book – New Headway-intermediate (NHW) In the procedure of collecting data, the author recognizes there are a variety of conversational activities in NHW, with the result that twenty conversations are picked up randomly Eight conversations employed both positive politeness and negative politeness strategies are chosen for the aim of finding out politeness strategies in NHW The questionnaire is adapted to deliver to UNETI teachers of English
Within the last one decade, there have been a lot of good methods for cross- cultural and inter-language researchers One of them is discourse completion task (DCT) The researchers investigate that DCT tends to bring more advantages than ethnographic method and role–play method Firstly, it doesn‟t consume large amounts of time Nevertheless, the role-play approach is suggested to be concerned with time-consuming on tape records Secondly, it is unnecessary to use contextual variables in comparison with the ethnographic method DCT contains two different types: Oral Completion Task and Written Completion Task The first one is modelled as a closed role-play and in this closed role-play The second one consists of written interactions Consequently, DCT along with MCQ are chosen in the questionnaire in this study Although the researcher is painfully aware of the limited point of this method consisting non-authentic collected data and non-verbal features, it is the first choice thanks to the following reasons First of all, it is considered as an effective tool of collecting data quickly and easily Secondly, it helps researchers control internal context variables With this instrument, the author hopes that the collecting data from the survey questionnaire are natural, typical and reliable for consideration and evaluation.
Participants
For the concern of the present study, 15 teachers of English at university of economic and technical industries (UNETI) were selected The English Faculty at UNETI divides into two sub-groups These teachers of English belong to the second sub-group They are in charge of teaching New Headway – Intermediate for second- year students All the participants were female aged from 30 to 40 Both participants have at least six-year experiences in teaching with this course book.
Data collection procedure
In the process of collecting data, we first pick up all sentences in conversations in NHW Then, we set up context, take roles of participants into consideration and discuss with our colleagues and my supervisor to find out whether these sentences are “natural” All sentences/ utterances which are mostly approved to be “natural” gain a deeper treatment Next we consult specialists and native speakers with the same procedure After the two procedures, we have 261 utterances which are considered “natural” and to some extent, “polite” in two types: positive and negative politeness All statistics in the study are calculated on the basis of total 261 utterances
4.2 Politeness strategies under the inference of role relationships in NHW as seen by UNETI teachers of English
The survey questionnaire will be distributed to all participants directly The goal of this questionnaire is to investigate identity of UNETI teachers of English in specific situations or contexts in which politeness strategies are used After that, the analysis of the result is based on tables and figures
Data analysis method
The process of analysing data consists of four steps Firstly, 216 utterances found in NHW belongs two categories of politeness strategies employed: positive and negative politeness After that the author based on certain positive and negative strategies which are introduced by Brown & Levinson(1987) and Nguyen Quang
(2002) in order to make detail analysis about these strategies and role relationships in 216 utterances Secondly, all contexts with S-H relationships are considered in order to see how S-H relationship affects the choice of politeness strategies Thirdly, all the statistics needed for the study are calculated carefully and presented in the following tables as well as figures Finally, the author will try to find out how UNETI teachers realize the politeness strategies in the conversational activities by analysing figures from data.
FINDINGS AND DISCUSSION
Positive and negative politeness in conversational activities in the course book “NEW HEADWAY, INTERMEDIATE”
1.1 Overview of politeness strategies in “New Headway” intermediate (NHW)
“New Headway - Intermediate” is written by John and Liz Soars and published by Oxford University Press in 2007 This book is considered as an ideal for students to work in an international environment It is the third level the five-level series It provides a highly authentic and flexible range of materials for English learners worldwide The course book includes 12 main units, with a Grammar reference, Reading, Listening, Writing and Speaking skills Thus, it is chosen as a main material for second- years students at UNETI, who have gained background knowledge of international communication and language skills necessary for a wide range of daily/business situations such as participating in meetings, telephoning, negotiating, and socializing Furthermore, this book has been taught at UNETI for four years
Beside much of what we say and communicate is determined by our social relationships and politeness as a means for creating, sustaining, changing and realizing social relations Be aware of the important role of politeness in cross- cultural communication, the author focuses on analysing politeness strategies in the conversational activities of the course book And in order to gain that aim, the study and analysis are based on Brown & Levinson‟s and Nguyen Quang‟s politeness theoretical framework In the procedure of carrying on this field, we do not make any slight judgment of how good or bad an action is Instead, the researcher gets a detailed insight into politeness strategies which are used by native speakers and the frequency of each strategy
In the first part of this chapter, the author pays much attention to analyse the frequency of occurrence of positive and negative politeness strategies used in the conversational activities of the course book “New Headway, Intermediate.”
1.2 Frequency of occurrence of positive and negative politeness strategies in conversational activities in the course book “New Headway, Intermediate”
As mentioned in chapter II Methodology, in collecting data, utterances in the conversations in the course book are picked up Finally, 261 utterances found in conversational activities in the course book “New Headway, Intermediate” fall into two categories of politeness strategies: positive strategies and negative strategies
The balance of positive and negative politeness strategies used in NHW is shown in the following figure:
Figure 2: Frequency of negative and positive politeness strategies found in the conversations
The figure above shows the sum together with the respective percentage of politeness strategies in all conversations in NHW It can be seen clearly from the chart, positive politeness strategies are employed more frequently than negative politeness strategies Definitely, there is a negligible amount of frequency of occurrence of positive and negative politeness strategies This does not mean that in Western countries everybody seems to have a desire to use positive politeness strategies This seems that the presumptions of Nguyen Quang (2002), for long- term relationships, people tend to decline negative politeness in communication
Negative Politeness Strategies narrow the distance between S and H
1.2.1 Positive Politeness strategies in conversational activities
There are totally 15 positive politeness strategies according to Brown &
Levinson, (1987) and more 2 positive politeness strategies added by Nguyen Quang
(2004) Based on this, the author categorizes the utterances into 17 categories The statistics of the frequency of positive politeness strategies which come from study will be converted into Figure 3 as follows:
Figure 3: Frequency of positive politeness strategies used in the conversations
The chart shows that there are 13 positive politeness strategies employed in NHW We can come up with suggestion that S and H might feel secure in using these strategies The chart above reveals that positive politeness strategies 1, 2, 5, 10 are employed quite often Positive politeness strategy 5: seek agreements has the most usage frequency with 17.3% The use of this strategy (include both S and H in the activity) in daily conversation seems to make the relationship between S and H closer and friendlier by employing safe topics, repetition or minimal encouragers such as: Definitely!/ Can‟t be better./ You‟re kidding and so on
PPS1 PPS2 PPS4 PPS5 PPS6 PPS7 PPS8 PPS9 PPS10 PPS12 PPS13 PPS16 PPS17
Let‟s take the followings for example:
E.g.: “A: Let‟s go for a run in the park?
B: Me? Run? You must be joking!”
(New Headway, Inter., unit 1) E.g.: “A: My grandfather had two sons from his first marriage
B: Really? I didn‟t know he‟d been married before ”
In these conversations, the interactors express a want of reaching agreement by using minimal encouragers, particularly, “You must be joking!”- showing that H wants to seek sympathy with S on his inability of running , “Really?”- registering H‟s surprise
The second highest percentage is strategy 10 (offer, promise) with 15.1%
Speakers wants to show their satisfaction at helping hearers gain their desire or needs by giving offers and promises which are natural outcome of choosing this strategy In addition, S wants to make intentions towards a hearer‟s positive face needs In conversation S employ this strategy for the purpose of conveying the sense of solidarity or friendship between communicators They would like to maintain and develop their relationship by extending invitation offer in order to satisfy the Hs‟ need For instance:
E.g.: “A: I‟ll give you a lift if you like
In some circumstance, this strategy can be used to convince your partners as well as release their worries by giving promises Let‟s consider the conversation below:
E.g.: “Grandmother: You must look after your money
(New Headway, Inter., unit 4) Before Antony – grandson travels around Asia His grandmother is worried about the boys‟ trip Thus, she reminds him to look after his money In order to make his grandmother less worried, he promises to look after his money carefully
As can be seen from the chart, ranking the third is strategy 1 (Notice, attend to hearer‟s interest, wants, needs, and goods) and strategy 2 (Exaggerate interest, approval, sympathy with hearer) with same percentage of 10.7% Communicators use these strategies with the hope that speaker should pay attention to hearer‟s noticeable change remarkable possessions, and other things that hearer wants speaker to notice and approved of For example:
E.g.: “A: I really like your shoes! Where did you buy them?
B: At that new shop in town
(New Headway, Inter., unit 2) Positive politeness strategy 4: use in-group identity marker is used about 0.9%
By employing this strategy, S can claim common ground with H, which implies that there are more agreement between S and H It also creates an intimate atmosphere and decrease probabilities of communication breakdown Consequently, it makes both S and H reach the comfort and satisfactions in communication Let us take an example:
E.g.: Thank you for calling the Blackpool Concert Hall This is Matt speaking How can I help you?
(New Headway, Inter., unit 2) Another example:
E.g.: A: Bye, Mum I‟m off to school now
B: Take care, my love Have a nice trip
(New Headway, Inter., unit 1) Appearing at the average percentages is strategy 6 (Avoid Disagreement), strategy 12 (Include both speaker and hearer in the activity) and strategy 16 (Encourage) with 0.6%, 0.43% and 0.5 % respectively The following examples can be taken into consideration:
E.g.: Granddaughter: That kind of thing….or if I‟m going to be home late, or like staying late at school or whatever I can just let you and Mum know what‟s happening
Grandpa: Ok, Ok, that‟s good, but the problem is that people use them too much for every little thing
(New Headway, Inter., unit 1) Another example:
B: Well, he‟s tall, dark and handsome, but he‟s not very polite
(New Headway, Inter., unit 6) Positive politeness strategy 6 is used in the above conversations to avoid disagreement between interactors while communicating by applying token agreement with the linking word “but”
With the same percentage 0.7%, strategy 7 (Presuppose/ raise/ assert common ground) strategy 13 (Give or ask for reason), strategy 9 (Assert or presuppose speaker‟s knowledge of and concern for hearer‟s wants) are also used in daily life
Firstly, positive politeness strategy 7 is chosen by S to ask information, which makes the atmosphere familiar and therefore H is willing to share and co-operate
One of the typical examples with positive politeness strategy 7 is the conversation between Gabriella, aged 4 and her mother, Karen in unit 11 of the course book:
G: I‟ve got ten fingers, haven‟t I?
K: Yes, that‟s right, sweetie Ten pretty little fingers
G: And Daddy didn‟t go to work this morning, did he?”
K: No, it‟s Saturday He‟s working in the garden today
G: And we like animals, don‟t we, Mummy?”
K: Yes, we do Especially our cats Sammy G: Can I have a biscuit now, Mummy?
Although both S and H know each other quite well, they still need to communicate through such strategy Gabby‟s utilization of tag questions might reduce the imposition and make Ss‟ requirements softener It can be suggested that using this strategy allows both S and H to reach the final communicative goal
Moreover, giving or asking for reasons seems to be common and polite in English This strategy 13 often occurs with such phrases as “why not”, “why don‟t”,
Summary of main findings
The principal goal of this minor research is to investigate what positive and negative politeness strategies in the conversations in NHW Furthermore, this study also aims at the influence of role relationships in the ways of employing politeness strategies The last objective is to find out how UNETI teachers realize politeness under the inference of role relationships The major findings would be recapitulated and subsumed under the three research questions For the first question, the research expresses that most positive and negative politeness strategies are resorted in the conversational activities in NHW except for positive politeness strategies 3, 11, 14 and 15 and negative politeness strategies 8 It also reveals that positive politeness strategies are preferred more than negative politeness strategies in almost all types of conversational activities of the material According to the data analysis, obviously, each kind of conversational activity in NHW does not mention to all the same politeness strategies Among 13 positive politeness strategies, positive politeness strategies 1, 2, 5, 10 are employed quite often Beside the most favourite positive politeness strategies in almost all kinds of conversational activities is positive politeness strategy 5: seek agreements Among 10 negative politeness strategies, S and H seem to be more in favour of employing strategies 1, 2, 7, 3, 11 most, whereas negative politeness strategy 2 is dominated Nevertheless, strategy 9 occurs least
For the second research question, the role relationships concerning with relative power, social distance and ranking of impositions create dramatic impact on the selection of politeness strategies It is shown that positive politeness strategies are more used by friends and family members who want to pay attention, concern to each other or narrow the distance between them Apparently, their relative power tends to be power-equals
For the last question, all the UNETI consume that the utterances in the questionnaire are polite and the role relationships play a significant role in the selection of the types of politeness strategies In addition, they classified them into positive and negative politeness strategies On contrary, most of participants are unable to demonstrate how the role relationships influence the choice of this type of politeness clearly.
Limitation
In spite of the efforts of the researcher during the research procedure and data analysis, the study has its certain limitations such as due to time limitation and other unforeseen factors Firstly, since the only method of collecting data is questionnaire, nonverbal elements in a real context of conversational activities are not measured
Secondly, it is unable drawing definitive conclusions for the whole population of the study since the sample is not larger enough The findings, therefore, cannot be generalized to other contexts It is important to take these mentioned limitations of the study into consideration in further studies.
Suggestions for further study
From the results of the research along with the limitations of the study, several issues are worth considering for future research Initially, a similar study should be conducted with UNETI teachers in the longer time Particularly, they will be invited to participate a seminar with the title “Politeness strategies and role relationships”
They are being trained with a variety of strategies which are appropriate for positive or negative politeness and the influence of role relationships on selecting the types of politeness strategies After that, another investigation is carried on in order to find out how they realize politeness strategies under the inference of role relationships
Furthermore, researcher should combine different data collection instruments such as interview
Austin, J.L (1962) How to do things with words New York: Oxford University Press
Brown, P & Levinson, S.C (1987) Politeness: Some Universal in Language
Brown, P and Levinson, S (1990) Politeness: Some Universals in Language
Usage Cambridge: Cambridge University Press
Grice, H.P (1975) Logic and Conversation, Syntax and Semantics, vol.3 edited by P Cole and J Morgan, Academic Press Reprinted as ch.2 of Grice 1989, 22–
Grimshaw, A.D (1980) Social Interactional and Sociolinguistic Rules Social Forces 58(3): 789-810
Goffman, E (1967) Interaction rituals: Essays in face-to-face behaviour New York: Anchor Books
Lakoff, R (1973) The logic of politeness; or minding your p’s and q’s Papers from the Ninth Regional Meeting of the Chicago Linguistic Society 8, 292–305 Lakoff, R (1975) Language and Woman's Place New York: Harper and Row Lakoff, R (1977) What you can do with words: Politeness, Pragmatics and Performatives In Roger, Andy, Wall, Bob and Murphy, John (eds.) Proceeding of the Taxas Conference on Performatives, Presuppositions and Implicatures, 79-106 Arlington, V.A.: Centre for Applied Linguistics
Leech, G N (1983) Principles of pragmatics England: London and New York Longman
Quang, N (2003) Intercultural and Cross-culture Communication VNU Press
Quang, N (2005), Lecture-notes on Cross-cultural Communication ULIS,
Quang, N (2002) Các chiến lược lịch sự dương tính trong giao tiếp Tạp chí Ngôn ngữ số 13
Quang, N (2002) Giao tiếp và giao tiếp văn hóa Nhà xuất bản Đại học Quốc gia Hà Nội
Quang, N (2004) Một số vấn đền giao tiếp nội văn hóa và giao văn hóa Nhà xuất bản Đại học Quốc gia Hà Nội
Searle J (1969) Speech acts Cambridge: Cambridge University Press
Searl, J.R (1976) The classification of illocutionary acts Language in Society,
5, 1-23 Thomas, J (1995) Meaning in Interactions: An Introduction to Pragmatics:
Longman, London and New York
Watts, R J (2003) Politeness Cambridge University Press Yule, G (1996) Pragmatics Cambridge University Press
This survey questionnaire is designed for my research titled “A study of politeness and role relationships in the conversational activities of the course book “New Headway” (intermediate) as seen by UNETI teachers of English” This research involves one of the most significant linguistic terms, Politeness that falls into two types: Positive politeness and Negative politeness To make sure that you understand the terms the way I do, I would like to present the working definitions of the two types:
Positive politeness is any communicative act (verbal and/or nonverbal) that is intentionally and appropriately meant to show the speaker‟s concern to the hearer, thus, enhancing the sense of solidarity between them
Strategies used to realize positive politeness are positive politeness strategies
Example: I know you like chocolate, so I’ve bought you a whole box
Negative politeness is any communicative act (verbal and/or nonverbal) that is intentionally and appropriately meant to show that the speaker does not want to impinge on the hearer‟s privacy, thus, maintaining the sense of distance between them
Strategies used to realize negative politeness are negative politeness strategies
Example: If you had little time to spare for me, I’d like to talk about my work
Your assistance in completing the following items is highly appreciated You can be confident that this questionnaire is for research purposes only and you will not be identified in any discussion of the data
Please put yourself in the following conversations, tick (√) what you think are appropriate and answer questions
Conversation 1: Two friends are talking about their holiday
A When I looked down, there on the sand, right next to me, were my expensive sunglasses The ones I had lost the day before!
B You’re joking! That is amazing!
1 Is it polite or not polite? ………
2 If polite, it is: positive politeness strategies negative politeness strategies
3 How do you think the role relationship between two friends influences the choice of this type of politeness?
A: Could you do me a favour? Would you mind asking the programmer to call me? I have a question for him about the budget
1 Is it polite or not polite? ………
2 If polite, it is: positive politeness strategies negative politeness strategies
3 How do you think the role relationship between two friends influences the choice of this type of politeness?
Conversation 3: Granddaughter is talking with grandpa about wonders of the modern world
Granddaughter: And teachers go absolutely mad if we forget to turn them off and they ring in class
Grandpa: Good manners certainly aren’t a wonder of the modern world!
1 Is it polite or not polite? ………
2 If polite, it is: positive politeness strategies negative politeness strategies
3 How do you think the role relationship between two friends influences the choice of this type of politeness?
A: I loved every minute in Paris I’ll never forget it as long as I live
B: -er first, there’s something I want to ask you, something I have to ask you I love you so much…
1 Is it polite or not polite? ………
2 If polite, it is: positive politeness strategies negative politeness strategies
3 How do you think the role relationship between two friends influences the choice of this type of politeness?
A: If I were you, I’d get a better job
B: Oh, why didn’t I think of that? Thanks Mike That’s a big help
1 Is it polite or not polite? ………
2 If polite, it is: positive politeness strategies negative politeness strategies
3 How do you think the role relationship between two friends influences the choice of this type of politeness?
Conversation 6: Between receptionist and customer
A: Thank you very much Oh… I’m sorry but I can’t remember which restaurant you suggested
1 Is it polite or not polite? ………
2 If polite, it is: positive politeness strategies negative politeness strategies
3 How do you think the role relationship between two friends influences the choice of this type of politeness?
A: What a gorgeous coat! Was it expensive?
1 Is it polite or not polite? ………
2 If polite, it is: positive politeness strategies negative politeness strategies
3 How do you think the role relationship between two friends influences the choice of this type of politeness?
Conversation 8: Between two strangers in a street
A: Excuse me, can you tell me where the post office is?
1 Is it polite or not polite? ………
2 If polite, it is: positive politeness strategies negative politeness strategies
3 How do you think the role relationship between two friends influences the choice of this type of politeness?
Thank you for your cooperation!
SUMMARY OF POSITIVE AND NEGATIVE POLITENESS STRATEGIES
IN THE COURSE BOOK “NEW HEADWAY” INTERMEDIATE (THE
U1 - Sorry I‟m late I got stuck in traffic
Never mind You‟re here now
- Bye, Mum I‟m off to school now
- Let‟s go for a run in the park!
Me? Run? You must be joking!
- Can we get together this afternoon at 3.00?
I‟m sorry I can‟t make it then
- Have you heard that Jenny‟s going out with Pete?
Making Suggestions Social behaviour Compliments
Really? I don‟t know what she sees in him!
- Ok, Ok that‟s good, but the problem is that people use them too much for every little thing
- All right, all right Kelly you can stop that
- And teachers go absolutely mad if we forget to turn them off
-What would you like to do tonight?
- Cheer up! You‟ve got me I‟m always here for you
I‟ll give a ring when we get home
- Thank you for calling the Blackpool Concert Hall This is Matt speaking How can I help you?
- Great I‟d like two tickets, please
- Can I reserve them by phone?
Yes, that‟s fine Erm- tickets are $35 each
Could I have your name, please?
Yes, that‟s fine Erm – What‟s your card number please?
- Let me read that back
- Hey, I really like your shoes Where did you buy them?
Suggesting Responding Compliment Social behavior
- How much were they, if you don‟t mind my asking?
Hi, Jim How‟re things?
- And we were wondering if you‟d like to come It‟s our tenth wedding anniversary
- Excuse me! You‟re sitting in my seat
You‟re so kind! You really didn‟t have to
U3 - You‟re joking! That is amazing!
- Really? I thought you‟d met them before
- Really? I didn‟t know he‟d been married before
- It was excellent Have you seen it yet?
- What did you think of the play?
- Did you like your pizzas?
- - What was your holiday like?
It was a nice break but the weather wasn‟t very good
- What did you think of Sally Cotter?
She‟s usually very good but I don‟t think she was right for this part
- What was the match like?
- Oh no, no, please! Not Captain Corelli‟s Mandolin on DVD
- I know everybody‟s heard of Dracula and seen Dracula film, but I bet not many people have read the book
- Well, actually I think Frankenstein‟s a much better horror movie
- You feel really sorry for that poor monster
- It‟s all about Hemingway‟s travels through France, isn‟t it?
- Yeah, Hemingway drank a lot, didn‟t he?
U4 - You must look after your money
You start at 4.00 tomorrow afternoon
- Could you bring us the bill, please?
Yes, sir I‟ll bring it right away
- Would you give me you work numbers, please?
Of course, Oh, shall I give you my mobile numbers, too
- Can you tell me the code for Paris, please?
One moment I‟ll look it up
- I‟ll give you a lift if you like
Could you drop me off at the library?
- Would you mind opening the window?
No problem It‟s stuffy in here
- Sorry to interrupt, darling, but I think the baby‟s crying Could you go and check?
- Can I change them for a new pair?
Of course, Let me see if we have another pair in your size
- Hi, Bob Where are you going?
- Could you do me a favour? Would you mind asking the programmer to call me?
U5 - Good ideas! I‟ll get a loaf
- Don‟t worry I won‟t forget I‟ll be back
- Right Let‟s get these cases closed
- Why don‟t we meet at the Internet Café at about 5 o‟clock?
- Yes, I‟m going out for dinner with a couple of friends Do you want to join us?
- That would be great! I‟d love too
- Ok, so we‟ll meet tomorrow at 5 o‟clock at the Internet Café
- Why don‟t we do something with Soon- hee?
- Oh, that‟s good I can‟t wait to meet her
Well, he‟s tall, dark and handsome, but he‟s not
Student visitors Student visitors Student visitors
2 very polite In fact, he‟s even ruder than Carrie
- Mmm, these tomatoes are really delicious
- Generally speaking, I think that they do live up to their reputation
- I think we have one of the best right here on our street
U7 - I see And how long have you worked for them?
- Well, in fact I was born in Argentina
- That‟s interesting Have you travelled a lot?
- I suppose I‟m used to it after all this time
- But you know, I worked for Courtauld‟s for over
Interviewer- interviewee Interviewer- interviewee Interviewer- interviewee Interviewer- interviewee
- I‟ve just taken up golf, you know
- I‟ve been on all sorts of special holidays, you know
- Don‟t wish your life away
- Hello Could I speak to Sam Jackson, please?
- Yes, please Could you ask him to phone?
- Could I speak to Alison Short?
- Can I speak to Terence Cameron, please?
- I think he‟s got my number, but I‟ll give it to you again just in case
Receptionist- Customer Receptionist- Customer Receptionist- Customer Receptionist- Customer
- No don‟t worry I‟ll phone back later
U8 - You are both mad I think you‟ll regret it
- We know that, but we won‟t need a lot of money to live there
- Will you keep in touch with friends?
- You‟ll be our first guest when we move into our new home
- Excellent I‟ll look forward to that
- By, my darling! Good luck with the interview
- Just stay calm Call me when you can
- You know that, don‟t you?
- Of course But we‟ll worry about that later
- Well, it‟s a beautiful day Why don‟t we go for a walk?
- You need to get out
- Oh no! I‟d rather do anything but that
- Ok, shall we see what‟s on television?
- Thanks Mike That‟s a big help
- Why don‟t you ask your parents?
- Oh, well I suppose I could lend you some money
- Good idea, but I‟ve tried that and it didn‟t work
- Really! That would be great! Thanks Mike
- Yeah, yeah I know You are right
- Really? Still on crutches, eh?
- Thanks Send her my love
- All in all I suppose it
2 was a pretty good two weeks
- Absolutely, it was a great holiday
- I‟ll call again soon, Carl
- Well, you know what it‟s like being a teenager
- Yes, but I think it has its negative side as well as positive side
- It was hard to find myself and my place in the world, I suppose
Friends Friends Friends Interviewer- guest Interviewer- guest
What have you been doing?
- You know he thinks I‟m sort of … crazy
Interviewer- guest Interviewer- guest Interviewer- guest
- I suppose they should be under glass
- Do you mind talking about your Star War collection?
- I think I was four years old
- I think I saw it ten times
- You sure did love Star Wars
- I started collecting the action figures
- You know, I still have that Han Solo action figure
- Do you take milk in your tea?
U11 - I wonder if you could help me
- Can you tell me if there are any good restaurants nearby?
- I‟m sorry but I can‟t remember which restaurant you suggested
- Can I have a biscuit now, Mummy?
- I‟ve got ten fingers, haven‟t I?
- Yes, of course How much did it cost?
- Let‟s look at the map
- Great idea We can grab a sandwich at the deli
- You‟re such a couch potato
- You know! It‟s like string
- What do you mean, Uh- oh? You didn‟t forget to
Receptionist- customer Receptionist- customer Receptionist- customer
Receptionist- customer Mother- daughter Mother- daughter Fiends
Friends Friends Friends Interviewer- guest Friends