(Luận văn thạc sĩ) politeness markers in the textbook“hotel english

MINISTRY OF EDUCATION AND TRAINING QUY NHON UNIVERSITY TA THI NHI HIEP POLITENESS MARKERS IN THE TEXTBOOK “HOTEL ENGLISH” Field: English Language h Code: 8220201 Supervisor: Truong Van Dinh, Ph.D BỘ GIÁO DỤC VÀ ĐÀO TẠO TRƯỜNG ĐẠI HỌC QUY NHƠN TẠ THỊ NHỊ HIỆP NGHIÊN CỨU DẤU HIỆU LỊCH SỰ TRONG GIÁO TRÌNH “HOTEL ENGLISH” h Chun ngành: Ngơn ngữ Anh Mã số: 8220201 Người hướng dẫn: TS Trương Văn Định STATEMENT OF AUTHORSHIP Except where reference is made in the text of the research paper, this thesis “The politeness markers in the textbook “Hotel English”” contain no material published elsewhere or extracted in the whole, or in part from paper by which I have qualified for or been award another degree or diploma Moreover, no one’s work has been used without acknowledgement in the paper This paper has not been submitted for the award of any degree or diploma in any other territory institution Binh Dinh, August 2019 h Ta Thi Nhi Hiep ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS I am indebted to many people who have given me great help during the time I managed to complete this study Firstly, I would like to show my deepest gratitude to my supervisor, Dr Truong Van Dinh, who has given me much invaluable advice and encouragement since the very beginning and has been my frequent source on many invaluable insights I am also grateful to him for reading my manuscript and helping me make the necessary changes Secondly, I am also grateful to lecturers who have given the foundation for this thesis and all the staff of the Post-graduate Department at Quy Nhon University for their encouragement, kindness and administrative assistance Last but not least, I am particularly grateful to the members of my family who have helped me overcome a lot of difficulties throughout the h course and the study of this thesis ABSTRACT This study attempts to identify and analyze the structure and function of the politeness markers in the forty-five conversations of the textbook “Hotel English” as well as find out the pattern of politeness structures of this type of textbook by basing on the taxonomy of politeness structures which is proposed by House and Kasper (1981) The study is carried out through the adoption of quantitative, qualitative, analytic, and descriptive approaches The analysis of the data reveals some interesting findings First of all, nine out of eleven politeness structures stated in House and Kasper (1981) taxonomy; namely, politeness markers, play-downs, consultative devices, hedges, understaters, downtoners, committers, hesitators, and agent avoiders were found to be used with varying degrees, but forewarnings and scope-staters h were not found in any of the investigated conversations This reveals the inadequate inclusion of politeness markers in the conversations of the intermediate level of the Hotel English textbook Secondly, via the analysis, there were 143 politeness structures found in this textbook and they were utilized by both the server and the guest However, these politeness structures were distributed differently among the nine types of politeness structures and by the interlocutors Particularly, politeness markers, consultative devices and downtoners are the structures accounting for the most common frequency; meanwhile, some structures appeared with the least frequency such as playdowns and hesitators On the basis of the findings, some implications have been put forward It is suggested that the teachers have a duty to help the learners to realize that politeness markers should be considered as the significant factors in hotel English so that the students can know how, when, and why these politeness markers can be appropriately used TABLE OF CONTENTS STATEMENT OF AUTHORSHIP ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS ABSTRACT LIST OF ABBREVIATIONS LIST OF TABLES LIST OF CHARTS CHAPTER INTRODUCTION 1.1 RATIONALE 1.2 AIMS AND OBJECTIVES 1.2.1 Aims 1.2.2 Objectives 1.3 RESEARCH QUESTIONS h 1.4 SCOPE OF THE STUDY 1.5 SIGNIFICANCE OF THE STUDY 1.6 ORGANIZATION OF THE STUDY CHAPTER LITERATURE REVIEW AND THEORETICAL BACKGROUND 2.1 LITERATURE REVIEW 2.2 THEORETICAL BACKGROUND 2.2.1 Overview of the concepts 2.2.2 Politeness theory 12 2.2.3 Politeness markers 18 CHAPTER METHODS AND PROCEDURES 21 3.1 RESEARCH METHccODS 21 3.2 DESCRIPTION OF THE DATA 21 3.3 DATA ANALYSIS 22 3.4 RESEARCH PROCEDURES 22 CHAPTER FINDINGS AND DISCUSSION 24 4.1 GENERAL FEATURES OF POLITENESS STRUCTURES IN FORTY-FIVE CONVERSATIONS 24 4.2 POLITENESS MARKERS IN THE INVESTIGATED CONVERSATIONS 28 4.2.1 Politeness Markers 28 4.2.2 Play-downs 31 4.2.3 Consultative devices 34 4.2.5 Understaters 40 4.2.6 Downtoners 43 4.2.8 Hesitators 51 4.2.9 Agent avoiders 54 4.2.10 Forewarnings and Scope-staters 56 h 4.3 COMPARISONS OF USING POLITENESS STRUCTURES BETWEEN THE SERVER AND THE GUEST 56 CHAPTER 61 CONCLUSIONS AND IMPLICATIONS 61 5.1 CONCLUSIONS 61 5.2 IMPLICATIONS 64 5.3 LIMITATIONS 66 5.4 SUGGESTIONS FOR FURTHER RESEARCH 66 REFERENCES 68 APPENDIX LIST OF ABBREVIATIONS Face threatening act: FTA Speaker: S Hearer: H Politeness structures: PSs Conversation: C Politeness markers: PM Play-downs: PD Consultative devices: CD Hedges: HED Under-staters: UN Down-toners: DO Forewarnings: FO Hesitators: HES Scope-staters: SS Agent avoiders: AA h Committers: CO LIST OF TABLES Table 2.1: The five general functions of speech acts (Yule 1996: 55) 10 Table 4.1 PSs in forty-five conversations 25 Table 4.2 Frequency of each type of PSs 26 Table 4.3 Frequency of the structure of play-downs 32 Table 4.4 Frequency of the structure of consultative devices 35 Table 4.5 Frequency of the structure of hedges 38 Table 4.6 Frequency of the structure of understaters 41 Table 4.7 Frequency of the structure of downtoners 44 Table 4.8 Frequency of the structure of committers 48 Table 4.9 Frequency of the structure of hesitators 52 Table 4.10 Frequency of PSs used by the server and the guest 57 h LIST OF CHARTS Figure 4.1 PSs in forty-five conversations 27 Figure 4.2 Politeness markers in forty-five conversations 29 Figure 4.3 Play-downs in forty-five conversations 32 Figure 4.4 Consultative devices in forty-five conversations 34 Figure 4.5 Hedges in forty-five conversations 38 Figure 4.6 Understaters in forty-five conversations 40 Figure 4.7 Downtoners in forty-five conversations 43 Figure 4.8 Committers in forty-five conversations 48 Figure 4.9 Hesitators in forty-five conversations 52 Figure 4.10 Agent avoiders in forty-five conversations 54 Figure 4.11 Comparison in politeness markers and agent avoiders 58 Figure 4.12 Comparison in play-downs and hesitators 59 h Figure 4.13 Comparison in Consultative devices and Committers 59