Rationale
Language serves a fundamental purpose across different societies, as it is shaped by universal human needs and relationships, despite varying linguistic conventions (Robin, 1952:6) This underscores the idea that language emerges as a vital tool for communication, enabling individuals to exchange information and express their thoughts and feelings The study of effective communication in specific contexts has sparked significant interest among linguists, whose research has greatly advanced our understanding of human interaction.
Beginning-level Vietnamese students of English often struggle with personal questions, such as "Are you married?" or "How old are you?", which can be challenging for native speakers to accept Richards (1992) distinguishes between linguistic competence and communicative competence, emphasizing the importance of cultural knowledge in successful communication To enhance communication skills, English teaching for Vietnamese students should incorporate diverse cultural and social contexts, particularly focusing on politeness Understanding the politeness framework of a new culture is crucial, as it differs significantly from one's own (Celce-Murcia et al., 2000) Politeness strategies, especially in making requests, are vital since they reflect the speaker's ability to ask if the listener is willing or able to assist (Leech & Svartvik, 1975) However, there is a noticeable lack of research on politeness strategies in requests within existing literature.
Literature serves as a mirror to society and culture, with successful works reflecting contemporary life in a truthful and vivid manner As art is created for human experience rather than purely for artistic expression, the use of everyday language in literature becomes essential The incorporation of conversational language in great novels enhances our understanding and observation of the human condition.
For those reasons presented above, we decided to choose the topic:
“Politeness strategies in requests in “The thorn birds”
Aims of the study
- To explore how politeness strategies are manifested in the requests in the English language appropriately
- To investigate the ways characters in a literary work operate their requests politely in their conversations.
Scope of the study …………… … 4 Overview of the work …………… 2 2 5 Methods of the study
This study exclusively examines the linguistic aspects of politeness, specifically focusing on positive and negative politeness strategies as outlined in Brown & Levinson's (1987) theoretical framework The analysis is grounded in the requests made by characters in "The Thorn Birds," providing a comprehensive understanding of how these strategies are employed in the narrative.
Colleen McCullough's "The Thorn Birds," published in 1976, profoundly influenced readers' perceptions of great literature, as noted by Sweetie Pie in a book review Unlike previous Australian family sagas that focused on the bourgeoisie, "The Thorn Birds" chronicles the lives of the Cleary family across three generations This labor family embraces and evolves the traditional values passed down from their ancestors, embodying traits such as hard work, independence, and resilience The narrative features strong female characters: Fiona, who endures life's hardships without fighting against fate; her daughter Meggie, who seeks happiness through a forbidden love with a priest; and Justine, Meggie's daughter, who navigates her own moral complexities Central to the plot is the romantic yet challenging relationship between Meggie and Father Ralph, which weaves through the lives of these noble characters.
The progression of the novel is revealed not only through the detailed descriptions provided by the author but also significantly through the dialogues between characters, which illustrate their attempts to communicate their needs politely.
The thesis utilized the Quantitative Method, a research approach that emphasizes the collection and analysis of numerical data over qualitative techniques such as interviews and case studies This method relies on counting and measuring, yielding results that are typically represented in tables, graphs, or statistical formats Ultimately, quantitative research aims to enhance human knowledge through empirical data analysis.
Design of the study
The thesis comprises three main parts:
This part includes five sub- parts: the rationale, aims, scope, methods and design of the study
This is the nuclear part of the whole study containing three chapters
This chapter makes an overview of the theories on Speech Act, Speech Act of request and Politeness theory which are treated as the major grounds for the analysis work
Chapter 2: The study of politeness strategies manifested in requests in conversations in “The Thorn Birds”
This chapter finds out how characters in the novel cover politeness strategies in requests in their conversations
This part summarize somewhat has discussed in the above two parts and give some suggestions for further study
Theoretical background
The Speech act
S.A is always an interesting topic for many linguists such as Hymes (1964), Searl (1969), Levinson (1983), Brown and Yule (1983), Smith and Richards (1983) Their works about it seems to never end because, firstly it is related to language which may be changed time by time, and vary hugely from a place to another; secondly studying S.A is to find out how people deal with their own language to communicate effectively which indeed differs from society to society, even in the same region
S.A was first introduced by Austin (1962), but before him, there were still some other theorists whose ideas, to some extent, are quite different from Austin‟s For example, Moore views “language of common sense” and Bertrand Russell sees everyday language as “is somehow deficient and defective” Then they have an ambitious to idealize language by removing its imperfections and illogicalities
Austin argued against the idea of eliminating the imperfections of language, emphasizing the importance of effectively managing and utilizing these imperfections during communication This perspective laid the groundwork for his exploration of the concept of "Speech Act," which he defined in his seminal work "How to Do Things with Words" (1962) as the necessity to consider the entire context of an utterance to understand the relationship between statements and performative utterances G Yule further elaborated on this by introducing the idea of a "speech event," highlighting that effective communication relies on the situational context surrounding utterances For example, the utterance "This tea is really cold!" can be interpreted as a complaint in winter but as a compliment in summer Echoing Austin, Yule defined Speech Acts as actions performed through utterances, categorized into specific labels like apology, complaint, invitation, promise, or request.
In Austin's framework, the term "performative" is central to his "performative hypothesis," which posits that words function as actions This concept marks a significant advancement in language study, challenging the traditional "truth-conditional approach" of previous linguists, who viewed utterances as strictly true or false Austin distinguishes between "constative" and "performative" utterances, explaining that a constative statement, like "This woman is 30 years old," can be evaluated as true or false based on factual accuracy In contrast, performative utterances operate under a different paradigm, emphasizing the action-oriented nature of language.
Language serves not only to describe the world but also to enact change through utterances For example, the statement “There is a snake on your feet” functions as a warning, prompting the listener to take action, such as remaining still until the snake departs Performative utterances can be both explicit, like “Stop smoking!”, and implicit, as seen in the previous example Understanding these distinctions enhances our grasp of how language influences behavior and interactions.
1.1.2 Locutionary act, Illocutionary act, Perlocutionary act
The action performed via an utterance always consists of three related acts
The locutionary act refers to the fundamental process of producing meaningful linguistic expressions Individuals who struggle to articulate a language, such as those who are tongue-tied or non-native speakers, are unable to perform a locutionary act effectively.
“hsihfdru” will not normally count as a locutionary act because the utterance is nonsense, not fecilitous to the rules of Vietnamese language
People do not create a meaningful sentence without any purpose Hence, what participants intend to achieve via language in a communication process is called
The illocutionary act refers to the communicative force behind an utterance, known as illocutionary force Language can be employed to perform various actions such as promising, warning, requesting, denying, or apologizing However, the interpretation of an utterance can vary significantly depending on the context For instance, the statement "The dog is very fierce" may serve as a warning to discourage someone from approaching the dog or could be interpreted as a request for the host to confine the dog.
The illocutionary act influences the hearer (H), leading to a perlocutionary effect The same utterance can be interpreted differently based on context; for example, in Vietnam, the question "Where are you going?" may simply serve as a greeting, prompting a response like "Hi!" rather than a direct answer However, this interpretation may not hold true in other cultural contexts Successful communication occurs when a perlocutionary act aligns with an illocutionary act.
Among those three dimensions, Illocutionary act is interpreted rather identically with Speech Act: language implies actions So far, S.A also means Illocutionary act and two terms can be used alternatively
Understanding the distinction between locutionary acts, illocutionary forces, and perlocutionary acts is essential for effective communication An individual locutionary act can convey various illocutionary meanings and elicit different perlocutionary responses To interpret messages accurately and respond appropriately, the hearer must consider multiple factors beyond the mere linguistic expressions they encounter.
Effective speech acts, particularly performative ones, rely on specific conditions being met According to Yule (1996), these conditions include general, preparatory, sincerity, content, and essential conditions Jackson and Stockwell further elaborate that for an utterance to be successful, it must be delivered by the appropriate person to the correct audience, in the suitable location, at the right moment, and in an appropriate manner.
Linguists, such as Austin, categorize speech acts into five distinct types: verdictive, exercitive, commisive, behabitive, and expositive Verdictives are characterized by the issuance of a judgment by authorities like judges or juries Exercitives pertain to decisions that either endorse or reject specific actions Commisives involve commitments made by the speaker to undertake certain actions, such as promises or contracts Behabitives reflect reactions to others' behaviors or attitudes regarding past actions Lastly, expositives encompass acts of exposition, including the clarification of views and the presentation of arguments.
Later, linguists like Searle and Leech (1983) critiqued the existing classification for its overlapping categories In response, Searle proposed a new classification system that includes five distinct types of speech acts: assertives (representatives), directives, commissives, expressives, and declaratives.
- Assertives (representatives) shows the S‟s commitment to the truth of utterance It sates the fact, assertions, conclusions, and descriptions In the statement:
“His forehead is hot He must be ill” (conclusion), the S expresses his strong belief to what he says
Declaratives are a type of speech act that effect change in the world through utterances, such as dismissing, naming, or appointing For a declaration to be effective, it must occur within a specific context and often be made by an individual holding a particular role in society.
Eg: Priest: I pronounce you husband and wife
Jury: I sentence you six months imprisonment
- Expressives are used to express feelings and attitudes about something such as an apology, a complaint, a regret
Eg: Your hands are too dirty (a complaint)
I‟m sorry for being late (an apology)
- Directives are aimed to get the H to do something such a request, an order, a suggestion, a command
Eg: You must move it out immediately (request)
- Commissives commit S to do something in the future such a promise/ threat Eg: If you get good marks, I will give you a present
1.1.4 The speech act of request According to Searle‟s (1979) classification system of speech acts, request falls into the directives Its function is that the speaker attempts to get the hearer to do something by means of what he says or as “an act of asking for something in speech or writing, especially politely” (in Oxford Advanced Learner‟s Dictionary, 1992:
Eg: “Won‟t you kiss me goodbye” (p 276) - ask for a kiss goodbye
“Will you leave me alone, will you” (p 295) - ask the H to leave him/her alone
In social interactions, requests often benefit the requester while potentially threatening the requestee's "face." Maintaining one's "face" is crucial in community interactions, as each action is aimed at preserving dignity and avoiding embarrassment When a requester seeks assistance, they may inadvertently threaten the requestee's "negative face," with the level of threat varying based on the request's imposition Simple requests, like asking for directions, pose minimal threat, whereas more significant requests, such as lending money, can be more intrusive To enhance the likelihood of a favorable response, speakers should use clear and emphatic directives to convey their intentions while also employing polite or indirect language to encourage compliance, such as saying, "This room would look a lot better if you dusted it."
You have time enough to dust before you go
Didn‟t you ask me to remind you to dust this place?
Politeness and indirectness in requests
In social interactions, individuals strive to communicate politely, often viewing politeness as a strategic approach to avoid conflict and foster cooperative communication According to Yule (1996), politeness encompasses the methods used to acknowledge another person's "face" and embodies cultural etiquette principles such as tactfulness, generosity, modesty, and sympathy towards others.
Referring to requests in particular, a native speaker of the language uses certain strategies in order to maintain norms and principles that form part of social interaction As Bonn (2000:32) exposes
“Speaking in a polite manner involves being aware of the effect a particular illocutionary force has on one´s addressee, and aggravating or mitigating this force by applying a suitable degree of modification.”
Politeness is a crucial aspect of communication, influencing how requests are made within specific conversational conventions The strategies employed to make these requests depend on various contextual factors, including social power, roles, and status Additionally, speakers inherently seek appreciation from others and desire to maintain their personal space without interference (Renkema, 1999: 27).
Fraser (1990) summarizes that there have been 4 major approaches to politeness:
1) In the pre-pragmatic studies, many scholars had mentioned politeness and considered it as a social norm
2) Lakoff (1973, 1989) and Leech (1983) approach politeness from the perspective of conversational maxims, connecting their study with Grice‟s conversational maxims
3) Brown & Levinson (1987) study politeness as strategies employed by the speakers to obtain or to save “face”
4) Fraser (1990) sees politeness from the aspect of conversational contract (quoted in Dang Thi Manh 2005:7)
Of all those views, the conversational – maxim view of Leech & Lakoff and the face – management view of Brown & Levinson (1987) are most appreciated and popularly discussed
Politeness can be defined as a system of interpersonal relations aimed at facilitating interaction while reducing the potential for conflict in human exchanges Lakoff, as cited in Green (1989:142), identified three key rules that speakers can adhere to in order to engage in polite communication.
Rule 1 emphasizes maintaining distance in communication by avoiding imposition on others, which includes refraining from mitigating requests or apologizing for actions that the addressee may not wish to engage in To uphold this distance, individuals often resort to formal language or technical jargon, thereby minimizing personal emotions This rule is particularly relevant in scenarios where there is a significant disparity in power and status, such as between a student and a Dean or a factory worker and a President Consequently, Rule 1 is applicable in contexts that necessitate a high degree of formal politeness, aligning with Brown and Levinson's concept of negative politeness.
The second principle, known as deference, involves expressing oneself in a hesitant manner, often using euphemisms or vague language, allowing one's opinions or requests to be easily overlooked without direct contradiction This approach reflects the status difference between the speaker and the listener, as the speaker concedes to the listener's authority by leaving decision-making in their hands It is particularly relevant in interactions where the parties are of equal status but not socially close, such as between a businessman and a client, where informal politeness is essential This strategy aligns with the concept of negative face as described by Brown and Levinson, emphasizing indirect communication.
Rule 3: Be friendly (Encourage Feelings of Camaraderie)
The principle of camaraderie highlights the importance of equality between the speaker and the listener, fostering a sense of closeness According to Brown and Levinson, this approach enhances the positive face of both parties involved Indirect communication may be utilized when there is a mutual understanding, eliminating the necessity for explicit dialogue Rule 3 is particularly relevant in situations that demand intimate politeness.
And another linguist, Leech (1983:16) lists the politeness principle in order to
“minimize the expression of impolite beliefs” with the aim of “explaining the relationship between sense and force in human conversation” It consists of six maxims:
Tact is a crucial form of politeness in English-speaking cultures, aligning with Searle's categories of speech acts, specifically directive and commissive The Tact Maxim emphasizes minimizing expressions that imply costs to others while maximizing those that suggest benefits Being tactful involves making an effort to enhance the benefits for others, and the politeness of an utterance can be assessed using a cost-benefit analysis.
To enhance politeness and reduce the implied cost to the hearer (H), one can alter the propositional content of the utterance or utilize "minimizers." Minimizers effectively limit the level of imposition on H, aligning with Lakoff's politeness principle of "Don't impose." This strategy fosters a more considerate communication style.
E.g.: Let me use your computer for a little while
Maxim II: The Generosity Maxim
The Generosity Maxim states: “Minimize benefit to self; maximize cost to self” (Leech 1983:133)
The Generosity Maxim, unlike the Tact Maxim, is a self-centered form of politeness, focusing on minimizing personal benefit while maximizing others' gains Essentially, the Generosity Maxim contrasts with the Tact Maxim; when an individual reduces their own benefits, they also lessen the costs for others, and vice versa While both maxims often coexist in communication, there are instances where only one is evident For instance, in the advice “You can get them for less than half the price at the market,” only the Tact Maxim is present, as it benefits the listener without imposing any cost on the speaker.
Being generous is one kind of politeness; however, it should be applied within certain limitation Over applying this maxim may sound sarcastic and thus lead to communication breakdown
Maxim III: The Approbation Maxim
This maxim states: “Minimize dispraise of other, maximize praise of other”
It is generally more courteous to offer compliments rather than criticisms, such as saying, “You have a stylish shirt” instead of “You have a dirty shirt.” However, there are times when honesty prevents us from giving praise In these situations, we can maintain politeness by either remaining silent or opting for more indirect language, like stating, “His shirt is not very clean” instead of directly calling it dirty.
Another thing that S needs to bear in mind when applying this maxim is that
“other” may be H or H‟s dear things or people Therefore, it is not polite to ask: “Are those noisy children yours?” or “Did you cook this smelly dish?”
Maxim IV: The Modesty Maxim
This maxim states: “Minimize praise of self; maximize dispraise of self”
The Modesty Maxim highlights cultural differences in expressing kindness and receiving compliments In English-speaking cultures, saying "I was very kind to them" is less polite than acknowledging a lack of support, as recipients are expected to respond with gratitude Conversely, in Oriental cultures such as Vietnamese, it is more appropriate to deny praise, illustrating the varying applications of politeness across societies.
E.g A: You have a very nice shirt
B: Thank you (preferred in English-speaking cultures) A: You have a very nice shirt
B: Oh, it‟s very plain (preferred in Vietnamese culture)
Jenny Thomas restates this maxim of Leech as follow: “Minimize the expression of disagreement between self and other; maximize the expression of agreement between self and other”
When expressing agreement with H, S often employs a direct or exaggerated approach, while disagreement is typically conveyed in a more indirect or partial manner For instance, in a comparison of politeness levels, example (2) demonstrates greater politeness than (1), yet is less polite than (3).
E.g 1) A: His lecture was very good, wasn‟t it?
B: No, I think it was unintelligible
2) A: The film was interesting, wasn‟t it?
B: Well, but the end is not really satisfactory
Maxim VI: The Sympathy Maxim
The principle of politeness emphasizes reducing negative feelings while enhancing positive connections between individuals For instance, expressing sympathy with phrases like "I'm sorry to hear that your cat died" or offering congratulations such as "I'm glad to hear that you've passed your driving test" exemplifies this approach.
Not all conversational maxims hold the same weight; Maxim I serves as a stronger constraint than Maxim II, while Maxim III is more significant than Maxim IV Consequently, politeness prioritizes the needs of others over oneself, with politeness directed towards the addressee being more crucial than that towards a third party.
Leech emphasizes that maxims should be followed "up to a certain point" rather than treated as strict rules, as excessive adherence to any maxim can create an impression of insincerity or tedium.
In six maxims, Leech considers that the “tact maxim” is the most important in politeness in English speaking society
1.2.1.2 The face-management view on politeness 1.2.1.2.1 Face
Negative politeness strategies manifested in requests in “The Thorn Birds”
Eg: “If I saddle the horse, will you ride with me until dawn.” (p 201)
2.1.15 Strategy 15: Give gift to H (good, sympathy, understanding, cooperation)
One effective method to meet H's positive-face wants, as suggested by Brown & Levinson (1987), involves fulfilling some of H's desires This can be achieved through gestures such as giving gifts, expressing sympathy, demonstrating understanding, and offering compliments, all of which help H feel liked, cared for, and understood.
E.g “Mum, you must be tired Come and lie down; I‟ll lie a fire for you in your room Come on and lie down” (p 148)
6.6% is the occurrences of this strategy in this novel
2.2 Negative politeness strategies manifested in “The Thorn Birds”
Negative politeness encompasses both direct communication and the mitigation of face-threatening acts (FTAs) While going on record means conveying a message directly, this directness often clashes with the principles of negative politeness This conflict can be resolved through the use of conventional indirectness, which involves employing phrases and sentences that possess clear contextual meanings that differ from their literal interpretations (Brown & Levinson, 1987).
Indirect speech acts, particularly in requests, often reflect a conventional indirectness that emphasizes the speaker's effort to maintain the listener's face The greater the level of indirectness in an utterance, the more the speaker appears to prioritize satisfying the listener's face wants For instance, a request like “Would you help me up the stairs, please?” exemplifies this approach.
In the context of negative politeness, the request “Would you bring it to me, please?” is more courteous than simply stating “Help me up the stairs” or “Let bring it to me.” Despite the theoretical emphasis on politeness in requests, the characters in this novel tend to favor more imperative forms Nevertheless, the use of this polite strategy appears with a frequency of 4.45%, indicating that it is still employed, albeit less frequently than other forms.
Questions serve various speech acts, including offering, requesting, and expressing surprise, making them a form of indirectness This article will delve deeper into the use of hedges, a strategy notably employed in requests, with an occurrence rate of 8.5% in "The Thorn Birds."
There are 4 different kinds of hedges: a) Hedges on illocutionary force: In satisfying the speaker‟s want, DON‟T ASSUME H IS WILLING TO DO A, performative hedges are the most important linguistic means
E.g “I don‟t want to say this but I think I have to It‟s time you found yourself a girl”
(p 114) b) Hedges on the felicity condition: “If” clause is a very productive source of hedges of this kind
E.g “If I saddle the horse, will you ride with me?.” (p 201) “If her life is in danger, you‟ll call me?” (p 372) c) Hedges addressed to Grice‟s Maxim: S‟s want to show politeness by avoiding presumptions can be partially satisfied by not assuming that H wants to cooperate This non-presumption may be communicated by a set of hedges addressed to Grice‟s Maxims: non-spuriousness (Quality), saying neither more nor less than is cooperatively necessary (Quantity), being „to the point‟ (Relevance), and being perspicuous, neither vague nor ambiguous (Manner) For example:
Eg: “Perhaps we could have coffee together sometimes and discuss your plan” (p
Hedges play a crucial role in communication, serving various functions in different contexts Quality hedges help soften the impact of advice or criticism, while quantity hedges can effectively address complaints or requests Relevance hedges are valuable for moderating offers or suggestions, and manner hedges are applicable in all types of face-threatening acts (FTAs) Additionally, hedges that focus on politeness strategies signal the speaker's awareness of potential face threats, as seen in phrases like "Frankly," "To be honest," or "To tell the truth," indicating that the speaker recognizes the need for a more tactful approach.
E.g: “As a matter of fact, I have a brother with a large and thriving family of sons.” (p 75) e) Prosodic and kinesic hedges Apart from verbal hedges, FTAs can also be performed together with some prosodic and kinesic means such as facial expressions, gestures and the sounds
In "The Thorn Birds," a strategy representing 8.8% of politeness in requests highlights the speaker's uncertainty about the appropriateness of their speech acts This approach mitigates face-threatening acts (FTAs) and addresses the listener's negative face Various methods can be employed to implement this strategy, such as incorporating negative forms with tags in requests.
E.g “You can‟t tell me, can you?” (p 461) “You won‟t leave me alone, will you?” (p.295)
Generally, being pessimistic serves to limit the coercion of the speech acts and save his negative face
Three key social factors—D, P, and R—impact politeness in communication The selected strategy reflects the level of danger associated with a Face Threatening Act (FTA) but doesn't pinpoint which factor contributes most to that danger To mitigate this risk, one can suggest that the seriousness of the imposition (Rx) is minimal, thereby implying that D and P play a larger role in the FTA Consequently, minimizing the perceived imposition can serve as a form of redress for the hearer (H) and is often viewed as a strategy of negative politeness In English, various expressions can effectively convey this reduction, including phrases like "a tiny little bit," "a bit," "a little," "a sip," "a while," and "a drop."
This strategy is used less frequently than the previous three negative politeness strategies This one takes up only 3.29% of the total times politeness strategies occur in the characters‟ requests
Brown & Levinson (1987) highlight that deference involves two aspects: one where the speaker (S) humbles themselves and another where S elevates the hearer (H), acknowledging H's superior social status This high power differential signifies that H's rights to immunity from imposition are respected, indicating that S cannot coerce H into compliance Consequently, deference plays a crucial role in mitigating potential face-threatening acts (FTAs) and addressing H's negative face.
Deference is expressed through honorifics, which are grammatical markers indicating the social status of individuals involved in a conversation or referenced within it For instance, using terms like "Dr Adams," "dine," "gentleman," "bestow," and "piece" conveys respect, in contrast to more casual terms like "Adams," "eat," "man," "give," and "bit."
S demonstrates deference by elevating referents closely linked to H, such as his children, possessions, career, and house, through the use of honorific labels Conversely, S employs dishonorific labels when mentioning those associated with H, reflecting a humble attitude.
Eg: “Your Grace, I think you ought to step outside now” (p 373)
We observe that this strategy is used in majorly by Christian believers to show their the respect toward their priest even in requests It takes 4.5% of the total
Apologizing for a face-threatening act (FTA) demonstrates the speaker's awareness of the listener's negative face and their desire to minimize any potential offense According to Brown & Levinson (1987), this approach helps the speaker acknowledge the listener's needs while partially mitigating the impact of the FTA.
Eg: “I‟m sorry, please take one for yourself” (p 401)
This negative politeness strategy is used rather frequently in the novel, as 8.5% of the FTAs are redressed by using this strategy
To express a desire not to impose on someone, an effective strategy is to perform the Face Threatening Act (FTA) in a manner that suggests the responsibility lies with others rather than oneself This can be achieved by avoiding personal pronouns like "I" and "you," thereby creating a more inclusive tone For example, saying, "Here, here there is no need to cry " exemplifies this approach, as it distances the speaker from direct involvement while still addressing the situation.
Politeness strategies in requests in “The Thorn Birds” seen from S-H relationship
Positive Politeness strategy NegativePoliteness strategy
Chart 1: Politeness strategies in requests seen from S-H relationship
In romantic relationships, positive politeness strategies are more prevalent, comprising 60% compared to 40% for negative politeness This trend is unexpected, as lovers typically share a deep intimacy characterized by mutual desires and interests However, in this particular narrative, the dynamics are complex For instance, the relationship between Ralph and Meggie reflects a priest and parishioner dynamic, necessitating that Meggie maintains respect for Ralph through the use of honorifics when making requests.
Eg: “Please, talk it, Father”(p 276)
Or due to the reluctance of the love between Meggie and Luke, they tend to use negative strategies in their requests:
Eg: “You won‟t leave me alone, will you” (p 295)
In this novel, family interactions, such as those between Meggie and her brothers or husband, exhibit a significantly higher rate of positive politeness compared to negative politeness, with 72.01% of their communications being positive and only 28.91% negative This trend is attributed to the close relationships among family members, which fosters a greater use of positive politeness strategies than in romantic conversations The intimacy within families reduces the necessity to reinforce their bonds through requests, resulting in a notable increase in the use of in-group markers.
E.g Daddy, I want you to contest (p.210)
The relationship dynamics among this group can be characterized as "neutral," exhibiting a balance between formal and informal interactions The analysis reveals a notable difference in politeness strategies, with positive politeness at 45.12% and negative politeness at 54.88% When compared to the higher rates of positive politeness found in romantic and familial relationships—approximately 15% and 20% lower, respectively—this decline can be attributed to the greater social distance (D) impacting the choice of politeness forms in requests For example, Mrs Mary Carson employed a conventional indirectness request strategy toward Father Ralph.
Eg: “Will you take me to the top of the stairs?” (p.184 )
In the conversations among characters in this group, negative politeness strategies are more prevalent than positive ones, though the difference is only about 20% This notable presence of positive politeness in interactions between strangers in the novel may seem surprising, but it can be attributed to their circumstances, which often foster a need for sympathy and friendliness For instance, Ann expresses her sympathy towards Meggie, whom she meets for the first time, through a friendly request that omits the subject.
“Go into the bed room and lie down- not your bedroom, ours” (p 368)
The choice of politeness forms evolves with the development of relationships For instance, Justine's initial interaction with Rainer showcases a significant use of negative politeness, reflecting their status as strangers.
E.g “Do you mind if we walk, Rainer” (p 292)
After meeting each other for several times, their conversations become increasingly more informal with more positive politeness strategies
E.g “Oh, Rainer, don‟t make it so hard.” (p 243)
In summary, the politeness used in making requests is influenced by cultural factors and social relationships, as outlined by Brown and Levinson's concepts of Distance (D), Power (P), and Rank (R) Additionally, the living conditions, personal needs, and the status of the relationship between participants also play a crucial role in determining the level of politeness.
Politeness is a universal principle of human interaction, making it a complex aspect of communication across languages Learning to be polite involves not only language proficiency but also an understanding of the social and cultural values of a community Linguists, including Brown & Levinson (1987), have developed frameworks to analyze politeness and its contextual rules This thesis focuses on politeness strategies in requests, particularly how speakers convey politeness to achieve their goals, as illustrated in Colleen McCullough's novel "The Thorn Birds."
The investigation of the manifestation of 15 positive politeness strategies and
The analysis of negative politeness strategies reveals that characters in the novel predominantly exhibit positive politeness towards each other Their requests demonstrate a higher use of positive politeness strategies, with a ratio of 51.35% to 48.65% Among the 15 identified positive politeness strategies, the most favored is strategy 4, which involves the use of in-group identity markers to enhance the hearer's positive face.
In the realm of negative politeness, strategy 3 (Be pessimistic) is the most favored approach Conversely, the least utilized positive politeness strategies include strategy 2 (Exaggerate) and strategy 9 (Assume or assert reciprocity) Additionally, among negative politeness strategies, strategy 9 (Nominalize) and strategy 8 (State the FTA as a general rule) rank as the least preferred options.
The study reveals that in family relationships, positive politeness strategies dominate requests at 72.01%, while negative strategies account for only 27.99% In romantic relationships, the balance is closer, with positive politeness at 60% and negative at 40%, likely due to the complexities of such relationships, such as that between a priest and a believer Interestingly, among acquaintances and strangers, the use of negative politeness strategies is higher, with rates of 54.88% and 59.74%, respectively, compared to positive strategies at 45.12% and 40.26% This trend suggests that individuals often prioritize achieving their goals through friendly and approachable communication.
Given the constraints of a graduation thesis, this study offers a foundational exploration of politeness in the conversations of characters within the novel, paving the way for future research opportunities.
- Comparing politeness strategies in conversations in English and Vietnamese literary works
- Comparing politeness strategies in conversations in classical and modern literary works
- Comparing politeness strategies in conversations in British and American literary works
- Studying politeness strategies in one particular kind of FTA (for example requests or offers) made by characters of some literary works
1 Austin, J.L (1962), How to do things with words, OUP, Oxford
2 Brown, P & Levinson, S (1987), Politeness: Some Universals in Language Usage, CUP, Cambridge
3 Celce-Murcia et al (2000), Critique of a language enrichment programme for grade4 ESL, OUP, Oxford
4 Dang Thi Manh (2005) Politeness strategies in conversation in “The Quiet American” Graduation Thesis, VU-CFL, Vinh
5 House, J (1989), “Politeness in English and German: The functions of Please and Bitte”, Cross-cultural Pragmatics: Request and Appologies, Ablex
Publishing Corporation, Norwood, New Jersey
7 Leech, G.N (1983 ), Principles of Pragmatics, Longman, London
9 McCullough, C (1979) The Thorn Birds,U.S.A: Harpers & Row
10 Nguyen Hoa (2004) Understanding English Semantics VNU, Hanoi
11 Nguyen Quang (1999) A cross-cultural study of Apologizing responding to Apologies in Vietnamese and English- M.A Thesis, VNU-CFL, Hanoi
12 Leech, G & Svartvik, J (1975), A Communicative Grammar of English, OUP,
13 O‟neill, R., Duckworth, M & Gude, K (1997), New Success at First Certificate – Teacher‟s Book,OUP, Oxford
14 Richards (1992), Morphology and Computation, Cambridge, MIT Press.
15 Robin (1952), T he logical problem of language acquisition, Longman, London
16 Teitelbaum (1975), How to Write a Thesis, Prentice Hall, New York
17 Thomas, J (1995), Meaning in Interaction: An Introduction to Pragmatics,
18 Tran Ba Tien (2004), A Vietnamese-Canadian Cross-cultural Study in Asking for Permission – M.A Thesis, VNU-CFL, Hanoi