TAP CHÍ KHOA HỌC ĐHQGHN, NGOẠI NGỮ, T.XXI, số 2005 P O L I T E N E S S S T R A T E G I E S M A N I F E S T E D IN C O N V E R S A T I O N S IN " T H E Q U I E T A M ER IC AN" Ngo D inh Phuong'*‘, D a n g Thi Manh'” ' C om m unicative com petence involves three different aspects: linguistic knowledge, interactional skill and cultural knowledge Therefore, in order to communicate effectively and naturally, it is necessary th a t language learners in general, English learners in particular, have a good lan g u ag e know ledge an d be aw are of w h a t to say to whom a n d how to say it app rop riately O ne of th e most im p o rta n t elem en ts of t h a t a w a re n e s s is the consideration of linguistic politeness m arkers a literary work: th e novel “T h e Quiet A m erican ” by G r a h a m G reen e (1952) Politeness, in g e n e l, m e a n s to show co nsid eration s to o th e r s a n d to b eh ave in such a way t h a t m a k e s o th e rs pleased Yule (1996) d efines p o liten ess a s “being tactful, ge nerous, m odest and sy m p ath etic to w a rd s o th e r s ” It w as not until th e p ro m otio n of A u s tin ’s speech act theory in th e 1960s t h a t th e concept of politeness s ta r t e d to be sy stem atically studied in p r a g m a tic s Since then, politeness th e o rie s h a v e b een developed based on the speech act theory a n d on Goffm an’s concept of “face” T h e re have been different t r e n d s of a p p ro ach in g politeness so far Politeness m an ife sts itself in all kinds of conversations: in real life an d in literary works So far, th e r e have been m any discussions on the manifestation of politeness in every day conversations Politeness used in conversations between characters in literary works, however, has not been discussed very extensively Lakoff (1973) a n d Leech (1983) connect th e ir s tu d y of p o liten ess with Grice’s c o n v e rsa tio n a l m axim s Lakoff (1973) d e tails h e r P o lite n e ss P rinciple into rules: Don't Impose, Offer Options an d Encourage the Feeling o f Cam araderie Leech (1983) proposes politeness maxims, namely: Tact, Generosity, Approbation, M odesty and S ym p a th y From another perspective, Brown and Levinson (1987) discuss politeness as a set of facem a n a g in g s tra te g ie s T h e ir theory is based on the concept of “face” As far as language teaching is concerned, studying politeness in literary works, especially modern literature, can serve the purpose of improving languageteaching activities, b ecau se lan g u ag e in lite tu re is a tr u e reflection of everyday language In th is paper, we will deal w ith the m anifestation of politeness stra te g ie s in n Dr., Foreign Language Department, Vinh University r ) K42A1, Foreign Language Department Vinh University 74 75 P o lite n e s s s tra te g ic s m a n i f e s t e d in c o n v e r s a t i o n s in “ the q u iet a m e r ic a n ' “Face is th e public self-image of a person It refers to t h a t em otional and social sense t h a t ev ery on e h as and expects everyone else to recognize.” (Yule 1996: 60) Face co n sists of two aspects: positive face a n d neg ative face Positive face is th iT need to be s y m p ath ized w ith a n d to be tre a te d as a m em ber of th e s a m e group Negative face, on th e o th e r h a n d , is th e need to be in d ep en d en t a n d to h av e o n e’s own territory respected by others According to Brown and Levinson [2,1987], most speech acts have th e potential to dam age or th re a te n e ith e r th e s p e a k e r’s ' the h e a r e r ’s expectation reg ard in g selfim age (their face w ants) Such speech acts are called face threatening acts (FTAs) Brown a n d Levinson claim th a t w hen confronting an FTA, a sp eak er has options illu stra te d in the following diagram : Without redressive action, baldly On-record 2.Positive politeness With redressive action Do the FTA 3.Negative politeness Off-record Don’t the FT A If th e f a c e - th r e a te n in g p o ten tial of t h a t FTA is too g re a t, c a n decide to say nothing, (i.e op tion 5-D on’t th e FTA) s If s decides to p erfo rm t h e FTA, he h as choices: one off-record option (option 4) a n d th r e e on-record ones The first way of going on-record in p erform ing a n FTA is to it baldly w ith o u t re d re s siv e actio n s (option ) The second w ay is to it to g e th e r with a red ressiv e action: o ptio n (positive politeness) a n d o p tio n (negative politeness) T h e se two o p tion s will be the focal d iscu ssion in th is p ap er A c co rd in g to B ro w n a n d L evin so n , “p o sitive p o lite n e ss is red ress directed to the a d d ressee s p o sitiv e face, his Tạp c h i Khoư học D H Q G IỈN N ịio i n & f T.XXJ So 4, 2005 peren n ia l desire th a t his w a n ts (or the actions / acquisitions / values resulting from them ) sh o u ld be th o u g h t o f as desirable R edress consists in p a rtia lly sa tisfyin g th a t desire by co m m u n ica tin g th a t one's ow n w a n ts (or some o f them ) are in some respects sim ila r to the addressee s w a n ts ’ Positive politeness is oriented to th e positive self-image t h a t H claim s for himself It shows solidarity, em phasizes t h a t both sp eak ers sh are sim ilar w ants, s h a re common ground an d common knowledge and t h a t they have common goals It a tte n d s to H’s positive-face w a n ts an d save H’s face by the assu n c e t h a t in general, s w ants a t least some of H ls w ants For example, s reg ard s H to belong to the sam e group N g ọ D inh P h u o n g D a n g T hi M a n h 76 as himself, a n d t h a t th ey hav e th e sa m e im portance, sam e rig h ts a n d duties; or may show t h a t he likes H so th a t, in general, the FTA which H performs does not mean a negative evaluation of H ’s face s Since positive politeness is associated with in tim a te lan g u ag e usage, positive politeness tech n iq u es a re u sab le not only for FTA red ress b u t also as a kin d of social accelerator, w h ere in u sin g them , ind icates t h a t he w a n ts to “come closer” to H s, Brown a n d Levinson [2,1987] list fifteen positive politeness stra te g ie s and ten negative politeness strateg ies, which were illu stra te d by v ario us ex am p les from a variety of lan gu ag es N egative politeness, on th e o th e r hand , is defined by Brow n a n d Levinson [2,1987] as “redressive action addressed to the addressee’s negative face: his w ants to have freedom of action unhindered and his atten tio n u n im p e d e d ” Thus, negative politeness is oriented towards H’s negative face, and is aimed at partially satisfying H’s want to m aintain claims of territory and self-determination It manifests itself in the use of conventional politeness markers, difference markers, imposition minimizers, etc It gives redress to FTAs by means of apologies for imposition or interruption, of linguistic and lionlinguistic difference, of hedges, of impersonalising and softening mechanisms and so forth Utilizing negative politeness, s shows his recognition an d respect of H's negative face wants, expressing his willingness of not interfering with H’s freedom of action Therefore, typical features of negative politeness are selfeffacement, formality an d restraint, with attention to very restricted aspects of H’s self-image, centering on his w a n t to be unimpeded Brown a n d Levinson also claim t h a t th e choice of p oliteness is d e te rm in e d by th re e social factors: th e social d ista n c e (D) of s a n d H, th e relative power (P) betw een them , a n d th e ab so lu te n k in g of im positions in the p a r tic u la r culture(R) Social d istan ce (D) is “a sym m etric social dim ension of sim ilarity/difference w ithin which s a n d H sta n d for th e purpose of th e a c t” (Brown a n d Levinson [2,t r 76,1987]) Normally, th e sm a lle r D is, th e less re d re ss one needs to give to his FTAs T h a t m ean s positive politeness or even bald-on-record s tra te g ie s a r e preferable am ong people of in tim a te re la tio n sh ip s T he relativ e power (F) is “cin a sym m etric social d im en sio n o f relative p o w e r” T h a t m ean s th e g re a te r power H h a s over s , th e sm a lle r power s h a s over H and vice versa, p ind icates th e rig h t of one p a rtic ip a n t to impose on th e o th e r in te rm s of p la n s a n d self-evaluation (face) G enerally, th e r e a re two sources of power: m ate ria l control (over economic d istrib u tio n a n d physical force) a n d m etap hy sical control (over th e actio ns of others) T he rela tiv e power of a person may o rig in ate from e ith e r source or both U n like D a n d p, R is not associated with th e relatio n sh ip betw een p a rtic ip a n ts of a co nversation b u t h a s m uch to w ith th e co n ten ts of th e ir u tte n c e s T he n k in g of im position of an illocutionary act on th e h e a r e r d e te rm in e s th e a m o u n t of re d re s s t h a t th e s p e a k e r need s to give w h en he does t h a t act T h a t m e a n s th e m ore faceth rea ten in g a n FTA is, th e more polite th e sp e a k e r a p p e a r s to be For FTA Tap chi K liou hoc D H Ọ G H N , N ỉỊo i Iiạữ I XXI So 2005 P oliten ess stra te g ie s m a n i f e s t e d in c o n v e r s a ti o n s in “ the q u iet u m e r ic a n ' ag ain st negative face, th e re are scales: the ran k in g of im positions based on the receipt of service a n d on goods For FTA a g ain st positive face, th e n k in g involves an a s s e s s m e n t of th e a m o u n t of pain given to H ’s face 77 im p o rta n c e on in div id ual territory A possible e x p lan atio n for this p h en o m en o n is t h a t m ost ch ara c te rs in th is novel have close relatio nsh ips (friends, acqu ain tances) F u rth erm o re, a lth o u g h they are from W estern C ulture (B ritish, A m erican, French), they have The manifestation of politeness strategies lived in Indo-C hina, particu larly in the novel 'T he Quiet American" will be V ietn am , for a long tim e, so they are discussed in the next section m ore or less influenced bv O riental On in v estig atin g more th a n 850 c u ltu re , which is positive politeness u tte n c e s m ade by th e c h a c te rs in oriented Of 17 positive politeness th is novel, each of which is considered as s tra te g ie s , s tra te g y (Use in group a n FTA a n d co n tain s a t least one red ress id e n tity m ark ers) is th e m ost preferable action for t h a t FTA, we figure out t h a t one w h en a sp e a k e r tries to give redress politeness stra te g ie s w ere employed action to a h e a r e r ’s positive face; and more th a n 1 0 tim es s tr a te g y (Q uestions, hedges) is most 3.1 The in vestig atio n uncovers th a t p referab le re g a rd in g negative politeness all positive an d neg ative politeness T he le a s t common positive politeness stra te g ie s proposed by Brown an d s tr a te g y is s tra te g y 14 (Assum e or a s se rt Levinson [2,1987] are employed in these reciprocity), w h e re a s strateg y uttera n ces T h e d a ta shows t h a t positive (N orm inalize) is th e least preferred politeness occurs a t a h ig h er frequency n eg ativ e politeness strategy th a n neg ativ e politeness (43.64% of the T he frequency of occurrence of politeness s tra te g ie s used w as negative positive an d neg ativ e politeness an d 56.36% was positive) T h a t m ean s s tra te g ie s in “T h e Q uiet A m erican” can on the whole, c h a c te rs in th is novel be s u m m e d up in th e following tables are p rim a rily positively polite to one (The p ercen tag e show n in th e following an oth er T h is re s u lt challenges the section is based on th e total n u m b e r of p re su m p tio n t h a t b etw een English tim es th at positive and negative sp eak ers, neg ativ e politeness is more p oliten ess s tra te g ie s occur in the novel, frequently used th a n positive politeness not on th e total n u m b e r of utterances): because W e s te rn c u ltu re a tta c h e s more Positive F requency E x a m p les politeness of o ccu rren ce s trateg ies “Good bye a n d good luck Be careful o f the 3.27% sn ip e rs' (p 50) You have such an a w fu l lot o f experience, Thom as, (p 1.45% 102) “H e's a doctor o f engineering, you know w h a t it is? (p 1.45% 78) * A ddress forms: “B u t T h o m a s, d ea r, I th in k o f 8.44% yours, too (p 118) Tạp c h i K lio u line Đ H Q G H N N ịỉo i /lịỊỮ, T.XXJ Sô 2005 78 N g ọ D in h Pin io n s P an*: T h ị M a n h 2.63% 4.81% 7.89% 0.82% 3.09% 10 5.35% 11 3.99% 12 13 2.27% 3.54% 14 0.09% * Use of jargon or slang: Hullo, T h o m a s (p 154) * C ontraction and ellipsis: B etter not (p 1 ) * Safe-topic: It's like aụ enorm ous fa ir , isn't it? (p 49) * Repetition: Vigot: He's a good chap in h is w ay, a very quiet A m erican Fowler: Yes, a very qu iet A m erica n , (p 17) *Token agreem ent: Fowler: W hat is D io la tio n ? It so u n d s like condensed m ilk? Heng: It has som ething in com m on w ith m ilk It is one o f the A m erican plastics, (p 129) * W hite lies: Phuong: W hich s c a rf you like best ? I like the yellow Fowler: Yes, the yellow, (p 122) * H edging opinions: Fowler: Im p o r ta n t? Dominguez: It m ig h t be * Gossip, sm all talk: Come in; come in , T om , g la d to see you H ow 's yo u r leg ? We d o rit often get a visit from you to o u r little outfit P u ll up a chair Tell me how you th in k the new o ffen sives going S a w G ranger la st n ig h t at the C ontinental He's for the north again T h a t b o y s keen Where there s new s there's Granger H ave a cigarette H elp yourself You know M iss Hci? C a n t rem em ber a ll these nam es - too h a rd for an old fellow like me (p 146) * P resup po sition m an ip u latio n s: “As a frie n d , is there n o th in g you can tell me?” (p 29) ‘T not Leqoq, or even M aigret " (p 28) “Y o u v e got a piece o f tail I w a n t a piece o f ta il too.” (p 36) ‘7 have h is n am e w ritten dow n because I know you fin d it d iffic u lt to rem em ber C hinese n a m es', (p 123) “S h a ll I m ake a pip e for y o u r (p 14) ‘7 could take it to the Legation It w ould save a stam p." (p 2 ) “We m u s t have a p a rty together som etim es to celebrate it.” (p ) “Let's have a lo o k ’ (p 141) “You h aven't bought a s c a rf for a long tim e W hy don't you go sh opping to m o rro w ?” (p 188) ‘77/ take h im hom e (for you) i f you get h im into m y c a r ” (p 37) Tap ( h i K lioa học Đ H Q G H N N ỉỉo ụ i tiỊỊữ T.XXI sỏ'4 2005 P o liten e s s stra te g ie s m a n i f e s t e d in c o n v e r s a ti o n s in "th e q u ie t a m e n c a n ' 15 5.44% 16 17 1.18% 1.54% 79 “I t’s not very nice being q u estio n like I'm q u estio n in g you", (p 169) “D on't worry, T h o m a s (p 113) “W hat are you th in k in g about?” (p 1 ) T a b le 1: Positive politeness s trateg ies m anifested in “T h e Q u iet A m erican ” Positive politeness strategies Frequency of occurrence 2.45% 12.79% 7.80% 1.90% 2.27% 7.53% 5.81% 0 % 0.27% 10 1.81% E x a m p le s “May I make your pipe?’ (p 13) “You could probably find the driver”, (p 19) “You can’t help us at all?” (p 21)* “If you and Miss Phuong would have dinn er with me?” (p 36) “Can I sit with you for a little?” (p 41) “If you and Miss Phuong would have d in n er with me?" (p 36) * Admit the impingement: “It’s not very nice being questioned like I’m questioning you” (p 169) * Indicate reluctance: “I have to come up here, you understand” (p 48) * Beg forgiveness: “Would you mind identifying him? I'm sorry, it’s a routine, not a very nice ro u tin e” (p ) “It sounds as though you were exam ining Mr Pyle”s marriage ability” (p 42) “I don’t believe in divorce: my religion forbids it, and so the answer, Thomas, is no- no” (p 119) “I only mention this as showing th e stren gth of my objection” (p 72) “Thanks for the company.” (p 167) “Always a pleasure.” (p 107) Table 2: Negative politeness strastegies manifested in “The Quiet Am erican” 3.2 A part from the occurrence frequency of each politeness strategy, our research also reveals the proportion of positive: negative politeness seen from S-H relationship There are main kinds of relationship between the characters of this novel: lovers, friends, wife-husband, acquaintances and strangers Graphically, the comparison between the use of positive and negative politeness can be illustrated in the following chart: Tap ( I I I K hoa h ọ c D ỈIQ G H N NịỊOỊii HỊỊIĨ, T.XXJ, So 4, 0 80 Nfio D in h P h u o n g D an « T h j M a n h □ Positive Politeness strategies □ Negative Politeness strategies L F W-H A Relationship Chart : Politeness strategies seen from S-H relationship L: Lovers W-H: Wife - Husband F: Friends A: Acquaintances 3.3.1 Lovers Between lovers, positive p o liten ess is d o m in an t over n eg ativ e politeness Positive politeness acco un ts for 79%, which is alm o st tim es a s m uch as negative T his sig nifican t difference in th e te betw een th e m a n ife sta tio n of positive politeness s tra te g ie s and negative po liten ess s tra te g ie s is not u n u su a l as th e re la tio n s h ip betw een lovers is one of th e m ost in tim a te Since lovers know each o th e r very well and th eir relatio n sh ip is b u ilt up on the grounds of s h a rin g com m on desires, in te re sts a n d even know ledge, th ey tend to use s tra te g ie s t h a t m a rk th e closeness of th e ir relation ship S tra te g y (Use in group id en tity m a rk ers) a n d s tra te g y (A ssum e/A ssert/R aise com m on ground) are the m ost com m only used positive politeness stra te g ie s a n d s tra te g y S: Strangers (Q uestions, hedges) is th e m ost freq u en tly occurring negative p oliteness strategy 3.3.2 F riends S im ilar to co nversations betw een lovers, versation s am ong friend s in th is novel (e.g betw een Fow ler and Vigot, T h o m as a n d Joe) em ploy a far h ig h er r a te of positive p oliten ess th a n negative 65.01% of th e po liten ess a t work in th is g ro u p ’s u tte r a n c e s is positive, a n d 34.91% is negative Like lovers, friend s a re in tim a te ly related people, so positive politeness is more com m on in th e ir talk However, in com parison w ith lovers’ conversations, th e r a te of positive politeness stra te g ie s moves down rem ark ab ly A suggested ex p lan atio n for th is p hen om en on m ay be t h a t friends a re not as close to each other, in te rm s of relatio n sh ip , a s lovers Tạp ch i K hoti hoc Đ H Q G H N N goại HỊỊữ T.XX1 So 4, 2005 P oliteness stra te g ie s m a n i f e s t e d in c o n v e r s a ti o n s in "th e q u ic l a m c r i c a n ’ Moreover, the w ant for selfd eterm in atio n is bigger betw een friends th an lovers, th u s the te of negative politeness is higher (In n orm al life, people tend to th in k of losing some p a rt of their freedom w hen they have a lover, yet no one th in k s so w hen they make new friends) 3.3.3 Wife - h u sb a n d It is a ssu m e d t h a t a wife and a h usband alw ays talk to each o th er in the most in tim a te language, an d if they ever any FTAs, they will be red ressed by positive politeness strateg ies However, the re su lt of th is s tu d y m ay challenge th a t a ssu m p tio n Couples in th is novel tend to employ more negative th a n positive politeness stra te g ie s (60% vs 40%) T his pheno m eno n can be ten tativ ely ex plain ed by th e fact t h a t the ch ara c te rs in th e novel not have successful family lives The w a r an d its h a rd sh ip drive m a rria g e into u n stab le s ta tu s For exam ple, T h o m as an d Helen a re going to get divorce, so it is not s u rp risin g t h a t th ey not w a n t to “become closer” to each would rath er keep other off each They other's territory; therefore, w h en they need to give re d re s s to some FTA, th ey choose negative politeness strateg ies 3.3.4 A c q u a in ta n ce s T his group of people belongs to some kind of “n e u t r a l ” relatio n sh ip , i.e th eir relatio n sh ip is n e ith e r form al nor inform al T herefore, th e proportion of positive p oliten ess v e rsu s negative p oliteness is a lm o st equal: 49.12% vs •50.88% In co m pariso n w ith th e te of Tap I III K hoa học 01 /(JCj H N , NỉỊOí/i HỊỉữ, I XXI, So 4, 2005 81 positive politeness used am ong friends, the r a te of positive politeness am ong a c q u ain tan ces d ecreases a t 15.89% This difference can be explained by the role of social d istan ce (D) in th e choice of politeness forms (cf 1.2.3.4) Since the distan ce betw een friends is sm aller th an th a t betw een acq u ain tan ces, more positive politeness is at work in conversations am ong friends 3.3.5 Stra n g ers C o n versations b etw een c h a c te rs of th is group have more to with negative politeness s tra te g ie s th a n with positive politeness strateg ies However, the difference betw een th e r a te of positive an d negative politeness is not very big: 17.48% It seem s su rp risin g t h a t such a large portion of politeness between s tra n g e rs in th is book is positive However, it is not unex plainable The reason is probably t h a t they m eet in such s itu a tio n s t h a t th ey are in need of s y m p ath y a n d sh arin g For example, Fowler m eets a p rie st in a religious holiday of th e Caodai He w a n ts to get news abo ut the w ar from th is holiday, so it is necessary t h a t he try to get the p riest like him an d to gain his good im pression Therefore, he employs positive politeness stra te g ie s in his talk w ith the p rie st to m ak e th e p rie st feel “closer” to him A part from the above analysis of each group of characters, our investigation also shows th a t even am ong the sam e group, the choice of politeness forms varies depending on th e im provem ent of their relationships For example, when Pyle and Fowler meet for the first times, their conversation manifests a lot of negative _N g o D in h P h u o n g D a n g T hị M a n lì politeness because they are still strange to each other E.g iC Do you m in d ? ” He asked with serious courtesy, “m y nam e is P yle” (p 18) After m eeting each o th e r for several times, th e ir co nv ersation s become increasingly more inform al w ith more positive politeness strateg ies E.g 'Have another bottle o f beer and III try to give you an idea o f things." (p 24) In short, as far as the S-H relationship is concerned, the research findings show th a t in conversations between lovers, positive politeness strategies occupy the major proportion: 79%, w hereas only 21% is taken up by negative Likewise, friends overwhelm ingly incline to w ard s positive politeness, so th e te of positive politeness stra te g ie s (65.01%) is much higher t h a n th a t of n egative politeness strateg ies (34.99%) in th e ir talk H u sb an d s an d wives in th is novel are m ainly negative politeness oriented, so the r a te of positive politeness is sm aller th a n we expected: 40% As for th e group of acq u ain tan ces, positive politeness counts for 49.12% an d n eg ativ e politeness counts for 50.88%, a n a lm o st equal rate The last gro up of c h a r a c te r s analysed is stra n g e rs It is not o u t of o u r a ssu m p tio n t h a t th e ir u tte r a n c e s em ploy more negative (58.74%) p oliten ess s tra te g ie s positive po liten ess than s tra te g ie s (41.26%) In conclusion, c h a r a c te r s in “T he Q uiet A m erican ” are m ain ly re s o rt to positive politeness The choice of politeness forms varies depending on kinds of relationship between characters, which is not unexpectable regarding Brown and L ev in so n’s theoretical fram ew ork However, th e r a te of positive an d negative politeness s tra te g ie s used in co nv ersatio ns a m o n g each group of c h a c te rs suggests t h a t th e choice of’ politeness in th e ir co n v ersatio n s m ay be d e te rm in e d not only by c u ltu re or by th e k inds of social re la tio n s h ip (which correlate w ith Brown a n d L evinson ’s notions of D, p, R), b u t also by the p a r tic ip a n ts ’ living condition, perso nal d e m a n d s a n d th e s t a t u s of th e ir relationship TÀI LIỆU THAM KHÁO Austin, J.L H ow to thin gs with w o r d s , OUP Oxford, 1962 Brown, p & Levinson, s Politeness: Some Universal^ in Language Usage, CUP, Cambridge, 1987 Greene, G The Quiet American, Penguin, London, 1973 James, c., Contrastive Analysis, Longman, London, 1980 House, J., “Politeness in English and G erm an: The functions of P lease an d B itte”, Crosscultural P ragm atics: Request a n d A p p o lo g ies , Ablex P ublishing Corporation Norwood, New Jersey, 1989 Leech, G.N., Principles o f Pragmatics, Longman London, 1983 Levinson, s Pragmatics, CUP, Cambridge, 1983 Tup ( h i Kh o ti hoc Đ ỈIQ C iỊI N N iỉo ụ i H iỊữ , T.XXJ, Sô 4, 2005 N g ô n n g h ọ c tiê n g V iệ t v V ă n h ó a V ièt N a m tr o n g d y - h ọ c , n g h iê n u dối c h i ê u VỚI 83 O’neill, R., D uckw orth, M & Gude, K., N e w Success at F irst Certificate - T each er’s Book OUP, Oxford, 1997 Thomas, J M e a n in g in Interation: An Introduction to P r a g m a tic s , Longm an London, 1995 10 Yule G Pragmatics OUP Oxford, 1996 1 Dỗ Hữu Châu, Giản yêu vé ngữ dụng học, NXB Giáo dục Hà Nội, 1998 12 Đồ Thị Kim Liên N g nghía lời hội th o i NXB Giáo dục, H Nội, 1998 13 Nguyền Dức Dân, Ngữ dụng học, Tập L NXB Giáo dục, Hà Nội, 2000 14 Nguyễn Thiện Giáp, Dụng học Việt ngừ, NXB Đại học Quốc gia Hà Nội,Hà Nội, 2000 15 Vỏ Đại Quang “Lịch sự: chiến lược giao tiếp cá nhản hay chuẩn mực xả hội?”, Chuyên san ngoại ngừ, Tạp chi Khoa học - Đại học Quốc gia Hà Nội, sô'L 2004, tr.33-43 VNU JOURNAL OF SC IEN CE Foreign Languages T XXI, N04, 2005 CHIẾN LƯỢC LỊCH THE HIỆN QUA NGÔN NGỮ HỘI THOẠI TRONG “NGƯỜI MỸ THẦM LẶNG” TS Ngơ Đ ìn h P h n g Khoa Ngoại ngữ, Đại học Vinh Đ ặng Thị M ạnh S in h viên lớp 42A1, Khoa Ngoại ngữ; Đại học Vinh Mức độ lịch c ủ a p h t ngôn nlìừng n h â n tơ có ả n h hương lớn đến hiệu qu giao tiếp Bài viết n y nói vê q trìn h kh ảo s t chiến lược lịch th ê qua ngôn ngừ hội th o i củ a n h ả n v ật tro n g tiểu t h u y ế t “Người Mỹ trầ m lặng” (G h a m G reene: 1952) dựa trê n k h u n g lý th u y ế t Brown Levinson [2,1987] Kêt q uá cho thấv, n h â n v ậ t chủ yếu th iên h n h vi lịch dương tỷ lệ sử dụn g chiên lược lịch dương: âm kh ác n h a u tuỳ theo q u a n hệ người nói - người nghe Kêt dược c h ứ n g m in h b ằ n g sô liệu cụ thê, p h ản n h ả n h hưởng yêu tỏ tâm lý-xà hội đên h n h vi ngôn ngữ từ n g n h â n vật Tạp ( h i Khoa hục l ) I I Q ( ì / I N N ịỊoụi n^ữ I XX/ Sò 4, 2005 ... of politeness strategies lived in Indo-C hina, particu larly in the novel 'T he Quiet American" will be V ietn am , for a long tim e, so they are discussed in the next section m ore or less influenced... idea o f things." (p 24) In short, as far as the S-H relationship is concerned, the research findings show th a t in conversations between lovers, positive politeness strategies occupy the major... Positive Politeness strategies □ Negative Politeness strategies L F W-H A Relationship Chart : Politeness strategies seen from S-H relationship L: Lovers W-H: Wife - Husband F: Friends A: Acquaintances