politeness strategies in the conversations in the listening sections of the coursebook innovations pre-intermediate = các chiến lược lịch sử được sử dụng trong các đoạn hội thoại ở phần nghe của giáo trình

4 ABSTRACT This study examines 55 conversations in listening sections of the book ―Innovations – Pre-Intermediate‖ – a course book of natural English to indicate the ways speakers appl

1

VIETNAM NATIONAL UNIVERSITY – HANOI COLLEGE OF FOREIGN LANGUAGES POST-GRADUATE DEPARTMENT

M.A Minor Thesis

Field: English Linguistics

Code: 60.22.15

HÀ NỘI – 2013

2

VIETNAM NATIONAL UNIVERSITY – HANOI COLLEGE OF FOREIGN LANGUAGES POST-GRADUATE DEPARTMENT

M.A Minor Thesis

Field: English Linguistics

Code: 60.22.15

Supervisor: Dr Tran Thi Thu Hien

HÀ NỘI – 2013

3

ACKNOWLEDGEMENT

This paper would not have been possible without the guidance and the help of several individuals who in one way or another contributed and extended their valuable assistance in the preparation and completion of this study

First and foremost, my utmost gratitude to my supervisor, Dr Tran Thi Thu Hien, whose sincerity and encouragement has been my inspiration as I hurdle all the obstacles

in the completion this research work

Moreover, I would like to express my gratitude to my family and my friends for both their encouragement and supports during the time undertook my study Without them my thesis would not be able to complete

4

ABSTRACT

This study examines 55 conversations in listening sections of the book

―Innovations – Pre-Intermediate‖ – a course book of natural English to indicate the ways

speakers apply politeness strategies in everyday conversations The length of conversations ranges from 18 seconds to 2 minutes 40 seconds and all of them deal with familiar topics such as everyday problems, studying, fixing objects, buying and selling things in the shop, life style, job and money The theory of politeness has been reviewed

by many scholars Brown & Levinson (1987), Kasper (1994), Fraser (1990), Eelen (2001), Watts (2003), and House and Kasper (1981) This study mainly focuses on the theory of Brown and Levinson‟s (1987) as theoretical background to investigate positive and negative politeness strategies used by speakers in the conversations of the book Majority

of the tactics found to be utilized in this book belong to positive politeness strategy while the most frequently used tactic is that of negative politeness strategy

5

TABLE OF CONTENT

Acknowledgment

Abstract

List of tables

List of abbreviations

INTRODUCTION ………

1 Rationale………

2 Aims of the study………

3 Scope of the study………

4 Significant of the study ………

5 Design of the study ………

CHAPTER 1: THEORETICAL BACKGROUND………

1.1 Face theories ………

1.1.1 Face ………

1.1.2 Face threatening acts………

1.1.3 Politeness ………

1.1.4 Politeness strategies ………

1.1.4.1 Bald on-record strategy ………

1.1.4.2 Off record strategy ………

1

1

2

3

3

3

5

5

5

6

8

9

11

12

13

6

1.1.4.3 Positive politeness strategy ………

1.1.4.4 Negative politeness strategy ………

1.2 Conversation ………

CHAPTER 2: METHODOLOGY ………

2.1 Data collection ………

2.2 Participants ………

2.3 Research method ………

2.4 Research procedure ………

CHAPTER 3: FINDINGS AND DISCUSSION ………

3.1 Positive politeness strategies ………

3.2 Negative politeness strategies ………

CONCLUSION………

1 Summary………

2 Implications………

3 Limitations ………

REFERENCE ………

APPENDIX ………

15

16

18

18

18

19

19

21

22

32

36

36

37

38

40

43

7

8

List of tables

Table 1: Frequency of positive politeness strategies

Table 2: Frequency of negative politeness strategies

9

List of abbreviations

FTA: Face Threatening Act

e.g: for example

a result, there is an increasing demand of studying English in many countries all over the world including Vietnam

In the past ten years, English has developed with an unprecedented speed in Vietnam Though not yet fully documented, around 90% of foreign language learners have been studying English Various language centers, both public and private, have been established with different courses, programs and types of training to serve the different

learning needs of different types of learners

In daily life, people communicate to each other using language and through conversations In order to avoid embarrassing other people or making people feel uncomfortable, it is advisable for participants in the conversations to be aware of politeness strategies The development of politeness strategies is mainly for the purpose

of saving hearers‟ face (Brown, P & Levinson, S C., 1978) People use politeness when

11

they try to minimize the potential threat in the interaction and to avoid making other people feel embarrassing or uncomfortable

Moreover, it is writer‟s personal interest toward the book ―Innovations –

Pre-intermediate‖, an interesting book in teaching natural English The language used in this

book is useful for improving communicative skills The writer of this study strongly believe that there would be a wide range of politeness strategies utilized in conversations

in the book ―Innovations – Pre-intermediate‖ to investigate

For the rationales given above, the writer of this paper decided to carry out a study

namely: ―Politeness strategies in the Conversations in the Listening Sections of the

Course book Innovations Pre-Intermediate‖ with the expectation to reveal the linguistic

politeness strategies in conversations in listening sections in the course book

―Innovations – Pre-intermediate‖ Above and beyond, the author expects that this study,

to some extent, is able to be helpful for the further research relating to politeness strategies as well as it could facilitate acquiring language, along with acknowledging the culture

2 Aims of the study

- To provide readers with a general idea of politeness strategies and point out the significant of politeness strategies in communication

- Classify politeness strategies employed in conversations in listening

sections of the book ―Innovations – Pre-Intermediate‖ basing on Brown, P &

Levinson, S C.‟s Politeness Theory

- To supply some implications of teaching politeness strategies in communicative English

To fulfill those purposes, the study aims to answer the following research questions:

12

- How are positive and negative politeness strategies used in the conversations in listening sections in the course book “Innovations – Pre-intermediate”?

- What politeness strategy is most frequently used by the speakers in the investigated conversations?

3 Scope of the study

This study aims at analyzing politeness strategies in conversations in listening

sections of the course-book ―Innovations – Pre-Intermediate‖ under the light of

Brown, P & Levinson, S C.‟s politeness theory (1987) All the attempts to analyze politeness in different sections of the book or other books in the series are out of scope of the study

4 Significant of the study

In terms of theory, this study reviews a theoretical background on politeness strategies used in conversations as well as shows the readers how politeness strategies utilized in their daily life even when they are unaware of them

The author also has the ambition of supplying one of the references for other studies on politeness strategies in different kinds of work such as films, stories, novels or even research on linguistics

The findings of this study are expected to be of value to teachers of English in teaching communicative English as well as linguistics aspects

5 Design of the study

This study is divided into three main parts:

13

Part 1: Introduction In this part, the rationale, aims of the study, scope of the study, significant of the study, design of the study are introduced briefly so that reader can have

an overall view of what is going to be presented in the paper

Part 2: Development consists of three chapters:

Chapter 1: Theoretical background

This chapter deals with key issues related to the paper and take them as the foundation

theory for this paper By exploring books and research, the “Face theories‖ is mentioned through the terms “Face‖, ―Face threatening acts‖ and ―politeness strategies‖ The chapter also gives an overview of ―Conversation‖ that is going to be addressed in the

finding of this thesis

Chapter 2: Methodology

In the methodology, readers are provided with detail of data collection, participants, research method, procedure employed in the paper

Chapter 3: Findings and discussion

In this chapter, all conversations in the listening sections are collected before classified and analyzed the frequency of occurrence of positive and negative politeness strategies used in the course-book “Innovation – Pre-intermediate” basing on Brown, P & Levinson, S C.‟s theory

Part 3: Conclusion

1.1.1 Face

Goffman, E (1959) annotates that people perform of themselves to other people in social interactions Between both participants of the conversation, there exists a mutual understanding that both of them acknowledge, consciously or unconsciously: the vulnerability of face Therefore, speakers attempt to maintain each other‟s face accordingly

Following Goffman, E , Brown, P & Levinson, S C (1987: 61) define “face‖ as a “the

public self-image that every member of society wants to claim for himself‖ in which an

individual‟s emotions is involved In communication, this “self-image” is maintained, protected or lost A desire in communication is maintaining each other‟s ―face‖ This is

done by recognizing the wants of other interaction and understanding their desires

Also mentioning definition of ―face‖, Yule, G (1996:60) shares the idea that it is “a

technical term‖ which means ―the public self-image of a person‖ that every individual

has and wants others to notice

The notion of ―face‖, according to Goffman, E (1967) particularly associates with the emotions such as being embarrassed or humiliated, or ―losing face‖ As being explained

by Brown, P & Levinson, S C (1987), people can understand face as something that is sentimentally invested and that is possible to lose, maintain, or enhance, and always

- Negative face, which is the ―avoidance of imposition‖ (1987: 61) on the

hearer, can be said to be the desire of not being obstructed by others

- Positive face, which is “the desire to gain approval of other person‖

(1987:61), can be characterized as the want of expressing personal identity on particular occasion

Positive face relates to the image we create and we want other people to consider, respect and admire While positive face appears to be similar to our character transported through language, negative face reveals what is commonly related to politeness

Either or both these face aspects can be threatened by certain inherently face threatening acts, which are defined both in terms of whose face Speaker or hearer‟s is at stake and which face want is threatened

The concept of ―face‖ is assumed universal by many researchers Not only being

considered to have global feature, positive and negative face also gain the cultural feature

in any nations (Brown, P & Levinson, S C.,1987) Arndt, H and Janney,W.R (1985: 293) also add to the favor of the universality of positive and negative face by stating that

―the desire to maintain face, and the fear of losing it are interpersonal universals transcending all sociocultural, ethnic, sexual, educational, economic, geographical and historical boundaries.‖

1.1.2 Face threatening acts

Another dimension mentioned by Brown, P & Levinson, S C (1987) is the fact that the face needs of the speaker, addresses or both may be threatened by speech acts During an

it is FTAs that oppose the negative and/or positive face of either speaker or hearer

FTAs that can threaten hearer‟s positive face is considered consisting of expressions that evaluate hearer‟s positive face such as disapproval, criticism, complaints, accusations, contradictions, disagreements; and expressions showing that hearer‟s positive face is not cared about by the speaker (expressions of violent emotions, taboo topics, bad news, emotional topics, interruptions) (Brown, P & Levinson, S C., 1978)

Hearer‟s negative face can be threatened by acts that limit the personal freedom of hearer‟s such as prediction of a future act of hearer, for example, orders/requests, suggestions/advice, reminding, threats/warnings/dares; declaration of a subsequent act of the speaker towards the hearer as offers/promises; and expressions in which the speaker shows a desire towards the just as praises and emotional expressions (Brown, P & Levinson, S C., 1978)

Similarly, speaker‟s positive face can be damaged by acts presenting that to some extent,

he is wrong or lose his self-control, including apologies, acceptance of a compliment, breakdown of physical/emotional control, self-humiliation, and confession

17

The acts showing the speaker‟s acceding to the power of the hearer may menace negative face of speaker, including expressions of thanks, excuses, accepting a gratitude, apology;

a response to the hearer‟s violation of social etiquette; or the commission of the speaker

to something he does not desire to do

1.1 3 Politeness

The term ―polite‖ in English dates back to the fifteenth century (―polished‖) Kasper, G (1990) Therefore, politeness is closely related to the behavior of the upper classes and

the expressions in polite society In the more modern definition, The Concise Oxford

Dictionary (Stevenson, A & Waite, M., 2011) defined “polite” as ―having refined

manners, courteous; cultivated, cultured; well-bred; (of literature, etc.) refined, elegant‖

Holmes, J (1992) shares the idea that politeness associates with paying attention on other people‟s feelings, Sifianou, M (1992: 88) makes it clearer by regarding politeness as

―…the consideration of other people's feelings by conforming to social norms and expectations…‖

Brown, P & Levinson, S C (1987) define politeness as maintaining hearer‟s face, that

is, being unimposed on and approved of in certain respects Brown, P & Levinson, S C (1987) also support for the idea that face refers to wants that consists of two types: ego-preserving and public-self preserving wants Both types refer to people‟s desire to be considered contributing members of the society in which ego-preserving generates

negative face and public-self preserving wants generates the positive face

Fraser, B (1990) posits four main ways of viewing politeness in the research literature:

the ―social-norm‖ view, the “conversational-maxim‖ view, the “face-saving” view and the “conversational-contract‖ view

In recent time, the issue of politeness is much concerned in many studies by researchers such as Eelen, G (2001), Watt, R.J (2003) and Bargiela-Chiappini, F (2003) who assume politeness is a communication strategy that people use to maintain and develop

18

relationships The politeness, as being conceived by Eelen, G (2001) and Watt, R.J (2003) is a strategy used to avoid conflicting or to construct cooperation in social interaction; is connected with communicating smoothly (Ide, S., 1989); or in Leech, G (1983), is avoiding interruption and keeping the social balance as well as friendly

relationship

Watt, R.J (1992:3) clarifies the different between first-order and second-order

politeness The former corresponds to “…the various ways in which polite behavior is

perceived and talked about by members of socio-cultural groups It encompasses, in other words, common sense notions of politeness.‖ The latter, on the contrary, “is theoretical construct, a term within a theory of social behavior and language usage.”

Basing on the perspectives of ―face‖ (face wants), factors of politeness strategies and

FTAs, the theories of politeness strategies has been diverse; however, two dominant ones considered here are House, J & Kasper, G.‟s and Brown, P & Levinson, S C.‟s, correspondingly

In researching the same field, in House, J & Kasper, G.‟s study (1981:175) they also point out some politeness strategies which supply an overview of politeness strategies used in English including: Politeness marker, Play-downs, Consultative devices, Hedges, Under-staters, Down-toners, Committers, Forewarning, Hesitators, Scope-stators, Agent avoiders

19

As indicated above, the Brown, P & Levinson, S C.‟s politeness theory is employed as the core theoretical background of the thesis; therefore, the politeness strategies introduced by House, J & Kasper, G (1981) are simply presented to get a general and

comprehensive view about the theories and works relating the issue of this study

However, it is important to mention that there are some ambiguities in using term

“strategy” in Brown, P & Levinson, S C.‟s politeness theory; thus, in this study the writer has decided to employ two terms - “tactic” and “strategy” in the sense of “different politeness tactics belong to one strategy” From now on, these notions would be widely utilized along the thesis

Mentioning the subject of politeness, Brown, P & Levinson, S C (1987) conclude that human politeness behavior in four strategies: bald on record, off-record-indirect strategy, negative politeness strategy, and positive politeness strategy As for each strategy, Brown, P & Levinson, S C claim their perception about the typical features, the major distinctions followed by the specific politeness tactics On their point of view, Brown, P

& Levinson, S C claim that:

 The bald on-record strategy does nothing to minimize threats to the hearer‟s

“face” and avoid FTAs

 Off-record indirect strategies: an FTA is avoided by not (literally) making a request at all but an indirect statement that must be inferred to be a request by the hearer

 The positive politeness strategy shows the speaker recognize that the hearer has a desire to be respected It also confirms that the relationships is friendly and expresses group reciprocity

 The negative politeness strategy also recognizes the hearer‟s face But it also recognizes that the speaker is in some way imposing on that face

1.1.4.1 Bald On-record strategy

20

In bald on-record strategy speaker makes no effort to minimize the impact of the FTA‟s

It is the speaker‟s choice of bald on-record strategy when he wants to get maximum efficiency rather than satisfying addressee‟s face when doing FTA By directly saying things, the hearer is usually shocked, embarrassed, or made them feel a bit uncomfortable

by the speaker In different circumstances, however, people can easily find this strategy when speakers and hearers have close relationship they are in a very informal environment such as in family

Brown, P & Levinson, S C (1987:95) categorize bald on-record into two classes:

Type 1: Cases of non-minimization of the face threat

Type 2: Cases of FTA-oriented bald on-record

In type 1, there will be no need of face redress when the maximum efficiency is of great importance and this is noticed by both participants of the conversation

For example: ―Help!‖ or ―Watch out!‖ (Emergency condition) Brown, P & Levinson,

S C (1987:96)

Another tactic of type 1 introduced by Brown, P & Levinson, S C (1987) is

metaphorical urgency for emphasis, which is employed when maximum efficiency is

considered very important For instance ―Listen, I’ve got an idea.‖ Brown, P &

Sometimes the interaction focuses on “task-oriented”, people do not need face redress

―Lend me a hand here.‖ Brown, P & Levinson, S C (1987:97)

Speaker does not have to satisfy hearer‟s face by redressing the expression in case there exists power difference between speaker and hearer, and the greater power belongs to the

speaker, we can find bald on-record For example: ―Bring me wine, Parker.—Yes, me

lady.‖ Brown, P & Levinson, S C (1987:97)

21

It is likely that sympathetic advice or warning is baldly on record without requirement of

redress For example: “Be careful! He’s a dangerous man.‖ Brown, P & Levinson, S C

(1987:97)

Bald on-record may consist of granting permission for something that hearer has

requested as in “Yes, you may go‖ Brown, P & Levinson, S C (1987:97)

Secondly, in the cases of FTA-oriented usage, it is polite for speaker to reduce hearer‟s anxieties by preemptively inviting hearer to impinge on speaker‟s preserve (Brown, P & Levinson, S C., 1987) In the following situation of welcoming, speaker insists that hearer may transgress:

The invitation ―Come in, don’t hesitate, I’m not busy‖ belongs to bald on-record because there is no other face want is affected (Brown, P & Levinson, S C., 1987: 99)

Greeting, farewell and offers are also belong to type 2 of bald on-record Take the offer

in the following situation as an example: “Don’t bother, I’ll clean it up‖ or ―Leave it to

me” (Brown, P & Levinson, S C., 1987:100), in which speaker insists that hearer may

impose on S‟s negative face

1.1.4.2 Off record strategy

Brown, P & Levinson, S C (1987: 211) indicate that "a communicative act is done off

record if it is done in such a way that it is not possible to attribute only one clear communicative intention to the act" Therefore, the act performed in an ambiguous way

by the speaker needs interpreting by the hearer via some other acts and via the present of contexts in which the utterance is stated

Brown, P & Levinson, S C (1978) also categorized some tactics of off record strategy

as follow:

1 Giving hints

2 Giving association clues

3 Presupposition

15 Being incomplete, using ellipsis

According to Brown, P & Levinson, S C (1987) off record tactics are used to satisfy hearer‟s negative face more effectively than that of negative politeness In stead of stating what the he wants, the speaker tries not to directly impose but makes the hearer realize his need to offer him

1.1.4.3 Positive politeness strategy

The positive politeness strategy is named ―the solidarity strategy‖ (Yule, G., 1996:65)

because it focuses on the closeness between the speaker and hearer while FTA is avoided

by appealing to the hearer‟s positive face For Brown, P & Levinson, S C., positive politeness is approach-based since it does not redress a particular FTA The potential face

threat of an act is minimized in this case by the assurance that ―in general speaker wants

23

at least some of hearer’s wants or by the implication that speaker likes hearer so that the

FTA doesn’t mean a negative evaluation in general of hearer’s face‖ (p.70)

From their cross-cultural research, Brown, P & Levinson, S C identify fifteen tactics that communicators use to convey approval of their hearer‟s wants and to convey that their own wants are similar (1987:102)

1 Notice, attend to hearer (his interests, wants, needs, goods)

2 Exaggerate approval, sympathy with hearer

3 Intensify interest to hearer

4 Use in-group identity markers

12 Include both speaker and hearer in the activity

13 Give (or ask for) reasons

14 Assume or assert reciprocity

15 Give gifts to hearer (good, sympathy, understanding, cooperation)

Fifteen Positive Politeness Tactics Introduced by Brown, P & Levinson, S C., 1987

Positive politeness is not necessarily redressive of a particular FTA which is different from that of negative politeness mentioned underneath In positive politeness, the sphere

of redress is widened to the appreciation of hearer‟s wants in general or to the expression

of similarity between speaker‟s and hearer‟s wants Brown, P & Levinson, S C (1987) assumed that the linguistic realizations of positive politeness are in many respects simply

24

representative of the normal linguistic behavior between intimates, where interest and approval of one‟s another‟s personality, presuppositions indicating shared wants, and so forth, are routinely exchanged They state that it is precisely this association with intimate

language usage that gives the linguistic of positive politeness its redressive force

1.1.4.4 Negative politeness strategy

Yule, G (1996:66) called negative politeness strategy ―the deference strategy‖ and Baba, J (1999:25) assumes it is characterized by ―respectful or deferential hehavior‖ Brown, P & Levinson, S C (1987:129) define it as ―redressive action addressed to the

addressee’s negative face: his wants to have his freedom of action unhindered and his attention unimpeded‖ Brown, P & Levinson, S C reckon that negative politeness is

most similar to what people in everyday life mean by ―being polite‖ One way of

creating distance between the speaker and the hearer is make speech acts such as offering

an apology (e.g ―I hate to bother you like this, but….‖), being indirect, and softening requests (e.g “I wonder if you could….‖) From their data, they have developed ten

different negative politeness tactics (1987:131) namely:

7 Impersonalize speaker and hearer: Avoid the pronoun I and you

8 State the FTA as a general rule

9 Nominalize

10 Go on records as incurring a debt, or as not indebting hearer

Ten Negative Politeness Tactics Introduced by Brown, P & Levinson, S C., 1987

25

Brown, P & Levinson, S C (1987) explain that while the range of positive politeness is really wide and free, that of negative politeness is much narrower and only focuses on

specific cases with the function of diminishing effects imposed by FTA The linguistic

realizations of negative politeness are all forms that are generally useful for social

“distancing”, just as positive politeness realizations are forms for minimizing social

distance Furthermore, negative politeness, is essentially avoidance-based, and the

realization of negative politeness tactics is the way of showing that the speaker recognizes and respects the hearer‟s negative face wants and will not (or only minimally) interfere with the hearer‟s freedom of action

Brown, P & Gilman, A (1989) suggest that negative and positive politeness strategies are not independent of each other Instead, whether a strategy is positive or negative is not the nature of the strategy itself but is dependent upon how the strategy is used in a particular situation Hence, they propose the collapsing of the two strategies into one

redressive super-strategy in which ―acts of positive and negative politeness may be mixed

by need not be‖ (p.165)

In brief, in the part of face theories above, the writer of this study discusses polite-related terms: face, face threatening act, politeness and politeness strategies However, due to the limitation in the scale of the thesis, in the finding and discussion, this paper just concentrates on the theory relating to negative and positive politeness strategies which are based on the concept of the two aspects of face and include the majority of linguistic devices used in everyday interactions are the ones most central to the current study

26

informal one, between two or more people, in which news and ideas are exchanged (http://oxforddictionaries.com/definition/english/conversation)

Conversation, as defined by (Richards, J C., 1980: 14 ), is “a type of speech event” that is

different from lectures, discussions, interviews and courtroom trials Conversation is

cooperatively constructed which is based on contributions, assumptions, expectations,

and interpretations of the participants‟ utterances (Richards, J C., 1980; Gumperz, J., 1999) Conversation is also considered the most ordinary and yet most profound of human activities by Haigh, G (2005)

Richards, J C & Sukwiwat, M (1983:117) consider conversation as way to ―mark

relationships‖, which suspends social distance, status, and power through linguistic

neutrality, equality, sympathy, and antipathy (Cook, G., 1989: 87) According to Nunan,

D (1999), conversation is a way of communicate verbally for mostly interpersonal and somewhat transactional purposes

Gibbard, A (1990: 3-4) argues that conversation is ―far more than a carrier of

information In talk we work out not only what to believe about things and events and people, but how to live We work out how to feel about things in our lives and in the lives

of others.‖ In discussion we arrive at the norms that govern our lies We determine thus

what is to count as morally right or permissible, or as rational, or simply what it makes sense to do or feel

It is obvious that conversations take a really important role in social life because people can exchange ideas and cooperate to help our society grow and develop It is extremely essential to make effective conversation to interact with our surroundings and people living in the surroundings

Pre-Walkey, A (2003) The coursebook ―Innovations – Pre-intermediate‖ has recently been

used in the university that the writer of this thesis is working in to teach freshmen with integrated English The writer finds that the language used in this book, especially that of conversations is very natural and useful for learners to develop their English skills

“Innovations – Pre-intermediate‖, along with others in the series, is a course book that

introduces the natural English to learners The book is based on a language-rich, lexical/grammatical syllabus and starts from the kinds of natural conversations that are useful for learners to develop their communicative skill The book presents and practices vocabulary, collocations, fixed expressions and idiomatic language It also motivates learners by presenting interesting texts, emphasizes on sound-chunking and oral fluency Especially, the book teaches many aspects of grammar and spoken language that are advantageous for learner to develop English naturally

The book consists of twenty units, each of which is divided in three main parts: conversation, reading and listening The listening and conversation sections in the book are all everyday conversations However, this study on focuses on all 55 conversations in listening sections are focused on to analyze the frequency of occurrence of positive and negative politeness strategies used in the course book basing on Brown, P & Levinson,

S C.‟s theory

2.2 Participants

There are many participants (both male and female) take part in 55 conversations in the course book The maximum number of participants in a conversation is 5 people (conversation 22), and a vast majority of the conversations investigated are between two

28

attendants Conversations are different in terms of length which ranges from 18 seconds

to 2 minutes 40 seconds, each of which lasts in about 1 minute in average In terms of turn taking, the most turns recorded in the conversations is in conversation 32 with 2 speakers and each takes 15 turns while there are 7 conversations in which one of the speakers is given only one turn to state their ideas

As for context, the book “Innovations – Pre-Intermediate‖ is a book of natural English,

therefore context of the conversations are all related to everyday situations with familiar topics The contexts found include in a restaurant, on the phone, on the road, in a shop, at school/university, in an interview; with topics as follow: everyday problems, studying, fixing objects, buying and selling things in the shop, life style, job and money

2.3 Research method

This study is fulfilled basing on a combination of quantitative and qualitative method The quantitative is used in synthesizing conversations, pointing out and comparing the frequency of different tactics of positive and negative politeness strategies basing on the theory presented in the literature review

The qualitative, which is supposed to be the main method in this study, is used in analyzing conversations and answers the research question of how politeness strategies are utilized in the book

2.4 Research procedure

In fulfilling the study, suggested steps are as follows:

1 Collecting conversations from the listening sections in the book “Innovations – Pre-Intermediate” with politeness strategies employed

2 Analyzing conversations and point out the politeness strategies in such conversations

3 Categorizing strategies

30

CHAPTER 3: FINDINGS AND DISCUSSION

In this chapter, tactics in politeness strategies are investigated and classified basing on Brown, P & Levinson, S C.‟s theory

The book consists of 20 units, each of which has a listening section Interestingly, all parts of the listening section are conversations There are 55 conversations all together which are numbered from 1-55 in order of appearing in the book Politeness strategies used in the conversations are 118 in which positive politeness strategies used are 83 times and negative politeness strategies are 35 times

The table illustrating the order of utterances containing politeness strategies in conversations numbered by the author with denoted tactics basing on Brown, P & Levinson, S C.‟s theory presented in the theoretical background can be found in the

appendix 1

For the positive politeness strategies, 83 times are found in the book with the wider range of tactics than those of negative politeness strategies as follow:

Tactic 1: Notice, attend to hearer (his interests, wants, needs, goods)

Tactic 2: Exaggerate approval, sympathy with hearer

Tactic 4: Use in-group identity markers

Tactic 5: Seek agreement

Tactic 6: Avoid disagreement

Tactic 7: Presuppose/raise/assert common ground

Tactic 10: Offer/ Promise

Tactic 11: Be optimistic

Tactic 12: Include both speaker and hearer in the activity

Tactic 13: Give (or ask for) reasons

Tactic 15: Give gifts to hearer (good, sympathy, understanding, cooperation)

31

Only three tactics in negative politeness strategies are found in the listening sections of the book:

Tactic 2: Question, hedge

Tactic 5: Give deference

Tactic 7: Impersonalize speaker and hearer: Avoid the pronoun I and you

3.1 Positive politeness strategies

In the 55 conversations investigated, the frequency of tactics is presented in the table below:

Tactics in positive politeness strategy Frequency Percentage

Tactic 1: Notice, attend to hearer (his interests,

wants, needs, goods)

Tactic 2: Exaggerate approval, sympathy with

hearer

Tactic 7: Presuppose/raise/assert common ground 28 33.73 %

Tactic 12: Include both speaker and hearer in the

activity

32

Tactic 15: Give gifts to hearer (good, sympathy,

understanding, cooperation)

Table 1: Frequency of positive politeness strategies

The most preferable tactics to be found in positive politeness strategies is tactic number 7

―presuppose/raise/assert common ground‖ with 28 times, equivalent to 33.73% over

tactics used The figure is followed by tactic 10 ―Offer/ Promise‖ and tactic 2

―Exaggerate approval, sympathy with hearer‖ with 19.27 % and 13.25 % respectively

Tactics 3, 8, 9, 14 are not found in the conversations in the book

3.1.1 Tactic 7: Presuppose/raise/assert common ground

Tactic 7: Presuppose/raise/assert common ground is the tactic utilized the most frequently In form of tag questions, the speakers presuppose that speakers and hearers to some extend have the common or equal knowledge For example in the conversation 1, a conversation between a tourist and a local, the tourist wants to go to Burlington but he misses the bus After being informed by the local, the tourist asks the local about the distance to Burlington:

A: It’s just down this road, isn’t it?

B: Yes, but is long way to go with that heavy bag

In this case, the common ground that the first speaker (the tourist) assumes that the second speaker (the local) also recognizes is that the distance between the place they are

standing and Burlington is not too far As a result, the answer that he gets is ―Yes‖

The same usage of tag questions can be obviously seen in other situations in the book

- You are joking, aren’t you? (utterance 14, conversation 5)

33

- Yes, kids need to learn about death sooner or later, don’t they? (utterance

19, conversation 8)

- And it’s really thick as well, isn’t it? ( utterance 20, conversation 10)

- You have done really well this term, haven’t you? (utterance 28,

conversation 15)

Furthermore, speakers also use negative questions in order to presume ―yes‖ as an

answer as a way that speakers know hearers‟ want, tastes, and habits The utterance 31 is

a typical example of the usage of this tactic which is taken from the conversation among John, Belinda and a shop assistant John is trying on a pair of shoes and he asks Belinda for commenting on the shoes Both the speaker (John) and hearer (Belinda) recognize that

the shoes are a bit too big, so by asking the question: “Don’t you think it’s a bit too big?‖ (utterance 31, conversation 16), John supposes to get an agreement from Belinda: “Yes,

- Can’t you ask mom and dad for some? ( utterance 100, conversation 51)

In those cases, speakers know that what they ask will be replied by an agreement because the speakers and the hearers share the common ground, that is the way they make presupposition of what they know about the hearers

In conversation 55, there are two old women talking about the youth these days One of them seems to be discontented with the action of some young people because of their bad behaviors such as kissing in public places, saying bad words, and not letting the old

34

people go first A woman, in stead of stating that in the past she always gave priority for the old, she tends to include both in the conversation

- When we were young, we always used to let old people go first, didn’t we?

In this case, although only the speaker is being referred to, the speaker does not use “I” but “we” in order to be modest

And the similar use of the tactic 7 can be found in:

- Let’s open it all up and give it a good clean, and see if that make any difference.(utterance 94, conversation 48)

The speaker in this conversation is a mechanic; he is checking the machine for his customer After asking about how the customer take care of the machine, he is the one

who is expected to open the machine and “give it a good clean, and see if that make any

difference” not both of them but he still use ―Let’s…‖ as a way of making the hearer

satisfy

Or, in another case, the speaker includes herself to the utterance even merely the hearers are talked about:

- Let’s just pay for it! (utterance 89, conversation 46)

In the conversation, a friend of the speaker broke a vase, and it is him who has to pay,

however, the speaker still use ―Let us‖

3.1.2 Tactic 10: Offer/ Promise

The tactic 10 is the second most frequent used in the book which accounts for 19.27% Promising or offering shows that the task of satisfying hearer‟s positive face is well focused by the speaker because both of them have the same purposes or the speaker is willing to help the hearer obtain his/her goals For example:

35

- I’ll drive you there, if you like.(utterance 3, conversation 1)

The sentence is taken from the conversation between a tourist and a local person The tourist could not catch the bus because it was too late He was offered to be given a lift by

the local The imperative that express the offer goes with the hedge ―if you like‖ make it

more polite and save hearer‟s face Similar situations are also found in the other conversations:

- We could give you some free time to study in.(utterance 16, conversation 6)

This is a short interview in which the boss promises to offer the interviewee time to study in case the interviewee works for them

The offers can be in form of questions as in conversation 32, when Kasia is invited by

her friend to enjoy the dinner, Kasia shows her willingness to help her fiend by offering:

―Well, in that case, can I do anything to help?‖ (utterance 67)

Also, when noticing that the addressee needs the phone to call someone, the speaker

offers: “Do you want to borrow it?‖ (utterance14, conversation 4) so that he can save the

hearer‟s face

3.1.3 Tactic 2: Exaggerate approval, sympathy with hearer

The tactic used in the conversations is done with extreme words in order to please the

hearer Turning back to the conversation 1 between the tourist and the local person, when the conversation continues, they talk about the local‟s bed and breakfast As a way of

showing interest in order to save the hearer‟s positive face, the tourist talks with surprise:

- Really? Wow! That’s great What a beautiful place to live You must love it here It’s so quiet and peaceful (utterance 2, conversation 1)

36

Similarly, in “Wow That sounds great.‖ (utterance 26, conversation 14), the speaker of

this utterance tries to please the hearer when the other mentions about the last Christmas

of his family

And the tactic is also employed by some speakers with the purpose of showing sympathy with hearers For example,

- A: … I had really a bad toothache for the last two or three weeks

- B: Really? That sounds awful! (utterance 23, conversation 12)

3.1.4 Tactic 15: Give gifts to hearer (good, sympathy, understanding, cooperation)

The tactic is used in conversations investigated with the speakers‟ aim to satisfy hearer‟s positive face want by satisfying some of hearer‟s wants

In the conversation 19, when hearing a friend said that he had been sick because of eating something bad in a restaurant, the speaker shows his sympathy to that friend by

stating:

- Oh no! that sounds awful.(utterance 38)

Or, another expression ―What a shame‖(utterance 78, conversation 42) is also used for

presenting that the speaker wants to share the difficulty with his friend in case his mobile

phone was dead

―What a pain‖ is the way that the speaker in conversation 43 expresses his

understanding between him and his partner when all of his partner‟s phone numbers were lost

It can be easily recognized in other conversations such utterances of performing

sympathy, understanding, cooperation as:

- Don’t worry about it! I’ll pay for half (utterance 90, conversation 46)

- Don’t be silly It’s fine (utterance 92, conversation 47)

- … but it’s a really stupid mistake, isn’t it? (utterance 99, conversation 50)

- I know (utterance 110, conversation 55)

37

- Just a few things, then (utterance 113, conversation 55)

3.1.5 Tactic 5: Seek agreement

In the conversations, speakers seek agreement by repeating part or all of what the preceding speaker has said The speakers sometimes repeat and show their surprise as in the example in conversation 23:

- S: Oh Dear What’s your job?

- V: Accountant

- S: Accountant! You?

Or in the conversation 53:

- G1: …Were they expensive?

- G2: Two hundred and fifty pounds

- G2: Two hundred and fifty pounds for a pair of jeans? (utterance 105)

This tactic can be found in other conversations in which the speaker know for sure what they have heard but they still seek for the confirmation from the other by saying again:

- Didn’t I? (utterance 57, conversation 25)

- Eighty pound! (utterance 86, conversation 46)

- Pay for it? (utterance 87, conversation 46)

When being asked: ― And when was the last time you cleaned it?‖ by the mechanic, the customer replies by repeating part of the question: “Clean it?‖ The speaker uses the

strategy of seek agreement to make sure what she hear is what the mechanic said and avoid misunderstanding so that she save the hearer‟s positive face

38

And sometimes the tactic is used with a bit hesitant of the speaker:

- One hundred… (utterance 58, conversation 27)

- Eh? Develop?(utterance 61, conversation 30)

3.1.6 Tactic 11: Be optimistic

The out come of this tactic is presumptuous or optimistic expressions of FTAs:

- Thursday, OK, but at the same time – six till eight, yes? (utterance 63, conversation 31)

The sentence is extracted from the dialog between a student who wants to know information about a course and a teacher who in charge of informing students detail about the course After checking whether the course starts on Tuesday, he is told by the teacher that the course actually starts on Thursday The student say the utterance 63 as a way of showing that there is good cooperation between the speaker and the hearer and the speaker does not sound serious

That purpose of the speaker can be seen in other conversations as well:

Hopefully see you next week (utterance 65, conversation 31)

Oh, don’t worry about it I’m sure they’ll like her (utterance 27, conversation 14)

The optimistic expressions of FTAs seem to work by minimizing the size of face threat

by literally stated with ―a little, a bit, just a moment‖ as in the following cases:

Just take a little bit off all round, please, and tidy it up (utterance 21, conversation 10)

Yes, those jeans do look a bit old (utterance 22, conversation 11)

Could you just give us a moment, please? (utterance 54, conversation 24)

Literal statement help reduce the scale of seriousness and makes it effective in saving the participants‟ face

39

3.1.7 Tactic 4: Use in-group identity markers

Normally, these markers are in-group usages of address forms, of language or dialect, of jargon or slang, and of ellipsis In the conversations studied, this tactic can be seen with the use of ellipsis:

What about you?(utterance 36, conversation 19 and utterance 43, conversation 21)

And well done (utterance 47, conversation 21)

Anyone? (utterance 48, conversation 22)

The usage of ellipsis proves that both speaker and hearer share the common knowledge

or understanding of what the speaker is mentioning For example: What about you?

(utterance 36, conversation 19), both participants of the conversation know that the speaker is talking about the hearer‟s weekend that is mention in the previous sentences

3.1.8 Tactics 6: Avoid disagreement

In order to avoid disagreement, in stead of saying ―No‖, speaker uses ―Yes, but…‖

For instance, in conversation 2, while Tina (the teacher) waiting for Hugh (her boyfriend), she meets Alfonso (her student) Tina and Alfonso talk together until Hugh appears and the student remember meeting her boyfriend in a club, that makes Hugh really embarrassed Hugh wants to leave there as soon as possible to avoid an unexpected conversation about him and his going to the club, so he asks Tina:

- H: … Tina, are you ready to go?

- T: Yes, but…

By avoiding disagreement, Tina tries to tell that what she thinks is not what she wants That is to say, she really wants to continue the talk with her student to see what her Hugh did at the club She uses this tactic to save the hearer‟s positive face

40

The speakers in the following example also want not to disturb hearers‟ positive face by telling the truth, so they choose avoiding disagreement:

- Yes, but it’s a really old one (utterance 17, conversation 7)

- Yes, but I’m sure that one day I’ll wake up it deed… (utterance 8, conversation 8)

By stating in that way, it seems to hearers that the speakers agree, but the speakers actually do not

3.1.9 Tactic 13: Give (or ask for) reasons

This tactic can be used for the advantage of either speaker or hearer The speaker asks:

“Why don’t you…?‖ as a way of showing that “I can help you?” or what help is needed

For example:

Why don’t you stay at my guest house? (utterance 6, conversation 1)

By asking this question, the speaker wants to offer the hearer a place to stay overnight The main aim of the speaker is not just ask for the reason why the hearer does not live in his guest house

Similarly, other the questions with : ―Why don’t you…?‖ are not for the purpose of getting the answer with “Because…‖ but to give suggestion:

So why don’t you get another job? (utterance 103, conversation 52)

Why don’t you go to see a film or something? (utterance 9, conversation 2)

3.1.10 Tactic 1: Notice, attend to hearer (his interests, wants, needs, goods)

The speaker using this tactic wants to take notice of aspect of hearer‟s condition and show their sympathy to and understanding of their opposition:

You must be really heavy sleeper… (utterance 41, conversation 20)