A VIETNAMESE ENGLISH CROSS CULTURAL STUDY OF PROMISING
Bạn đang xem bản rút gọn của tài liệu. Xem và tải ngay bản đầy đủ của tài liệu tại đây (316.78 KB, 66 trang )
i
CERTIFICATE OF ORIGINALITY OF STUDY PROJECT REPORT
I hereby certify that the thesis entitled
A VIETNAMESE-ENGLISH CROSS-CULTURAL STUDY OF
PROMISING
Is my study in the fulfillment of the requirements for the Degree of Master of
Arts at College of Foreign Languages, Vietnam National University- Hanoi.
Ha noi, 2008
Dinh Thi Be
ii
ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS
I would like to express my deepest gratitude to my supervior, Assoc. Prof. Dr. Nguyen
Quang, for his useful guidance, insightful comments, and encouragement without which my
thesis would not have been completed
My special thanks go to all my lecturers in Vietnam National University, Hanoi, Post
Graduate studies Department for their precious assistance, scholarly knowledge and
enthusiasm.
I am grateful to Miss Collen and Mr John, English teachers at Aseam centrer, Nghe An
colleage for their assistances in my data collection.
Especially, I am indebted to my friend, Bui Thanh Mai, for her great support
Last but not least, I would like to express my indebtedness to my family, especially my
husband, my grand parents who have given me constant support and love during the
completion of the thesis.
Dinh Thi Be
iii
ABBREVIATIONS
CUP: Cambridge University Press
D: Social Distance
E: English
FTA: Face Threatening Act
FSA: Face Saving Act
H: The Hearer
M: The married
NP: Negative Politeness
NPO: Negative Politeness Oriented
PP: Positive Politeness
PPO: Positive Politeness Oriented
P: Relative Power
R: Ranking of Imposition
S: The Single
S: The Speaker
V: Vietnamese
iv
LIST OF TABLES AND FIGURES
Table 1:
The five general functions of speech acts. ( Yule: 1996)…………………… 7
Table 2: The informants’ status parameters …………………………………………….
25
Table 3:
Strategies realized in promising ……………………………………………… 26
Table 4:
Politeness strategies according to the parameter of age ……………………… 42
Table 5: Politeness strategies according to the parameter of gender ………………… 43
Table 6:
Politeness strategies according to the parameter of marital status …………… 44
Table 7:
Politeness strategies according to the parameter of living area ………………. 45
Figure 1: Possible strategies for doing the FTAs ( Brown and Levinson, 1987)……… 15
Figure 2:
Politeness strategies in promising to close friend …………………………… 32
Figure 3:
Politeness strategies in promising to brother/ sister………………………… 33
Figure 4:
Politeness strategies in promising to colleague ( same age, same sex)……… 34
Figure 5:
Politeness strategies in promising to colleague( same age, opposite sex)……. 34
Figure 6:
Politeness strategies in promising to accquaintance …………………………. 35
Figure 7:
Politeness strategies in promising to boss (5 years younger)………………… 36
Figure 8:
Politenes strategies in promising to boss (5 years older)……………………. 37
Figure 9:
Politeness strategies in promising to subordinate…………………………… 38
v
ABSTRACT
This thesis focuses on cross-cultural similarities and differences in promising in
Vietnamese and English. Politeness strategies realized for promising are analysed with data
taken from two questionnaires for the Vietnamese and the English informants.
The thesis falls into two major chapters:
Chapter I : “Theoretical preliminaries” deals with the notion of culture, cross-culture, speech
acts, classifications of speech acts, politeness, politeness principles and politeness strategies.
Chapter II : “Data analysis and findings”: Questionnaires are used to collect data for the
study. Making promises which resorts to various strategies of politeness is a flexibly and
effectively communicative act in both Vietnamese and English cultures.
vi
TABLE OF CONTENTS
* Certificate of originality of study project report …………………………………….
i
* Acknowledgements …………………………………………………………………… ii
* Abbreviations ………………………………………………………………………… iii
* List of tables and figures …………………………………………………………… iv
* Abstract ……………………………………………………………………………… v
* Table of contents …………………………………………………………………… vi
PART A: INTRODUCTION……………………………………… 1
I.
Rationale ……………………………………………………
1
II.
Aims of the study ……………………………………………
1
III.
Scope of the study ……………………………………………
1
IV.
Methodology …………………………………………………
2
V.
Design of the study …………………………………………
2
PART B: DEVELOPMENT…………………………………………… 3
CHAPTER I: THEORETICAL PRELIMINARIES………………… 3
I.1.
I.1.1
Culture ………………………………………………………
What culture …………………………………………………
3
I.1.2 What cross-culture? ………………………………………… 4
I.1.3. Culture-shock …………………………………………………. 4
I.1.4 Relation of language and culture ……………………………… 5
I.2.
Speech acts ……………………………………………………
5
I.2.1. What a speech act? …………………………………………… 5
I.2.2.
I.2.3
Classifications of speech acts…………………………………
Promising as a speech act ……………………………………
7
8
I.3
Politeness …………………………………………………….
10
I.3.1. What politeness ?………………………………………………
10
I.3.2. Politeness principles…………………………………………… 11
I.3.3. Social factors affecting politeness strategies ………………… 15
vii
I.3.4. Politeness strategies ……………………………………………
16
I.3.4.1.
Positive politeness strategies ………………………………… 16
I.3.4.2.
Negative politeness strategies ………………………………… 20
CHAPTER II: DATA ANALYSIS AND FINDINGS………………… 24
II.1. Comments on the survey questionnaires …………………… 24
II.2. Comments on the informants ………………………………… 24
II.3.
Strategies realized in promising ……………………………
25
II.4. Promising as seen from communicating partners’
parameters…………………………………………………
32
II.4.1. Data analysis ………………………………………………… 32
II.4.2. Cross-cultural similarities and differences ………………… 39
II.4.2.1.
Similarities ………………………………………………… 39
II.4.2.2.
Differences ………………………………………………… 40
II.5.
Promising as seen from informants’ parameters …………
42
II.5.1. Data analysis …………………………………………………. 42
II.5.2. Cross-cultural similarities and differences ……………………
45
II.5.2.1.
Similarities …………………………………………………… 45
II.5.2.2.
Differences ………………………………………………… 46
PART C: CONCLUSION………………………………………………… 47
1. Summary of major findings ………………………………….
47
2. Suggestions for further research ……………………………
47
REFERENCES
APPENDICES
1
PART A: INTRODUCTION
I. RATIONALE
Language plays an important role in our life. Language is not only for communication
but also for cultural exchange among nations. It is difficult to imagine what our lives would be
like without language. Language is a sign that makes human different from all other species in
the animal Kingdom. People use it to communicate their ideas and thoughts to express their
feelings, (anger, love, hate, or friendship) and to convey their hopes and dreams.
Cross-cultural communication is interesting and attractive field for us to find out the
similar and different language when studying speech acts such as: greeting, advising,
promising, among countries in the world.
There are many ways to make promises in Vietnamese and English. But to “promise”
in an effective way is by no means easy. People often have difficulties in making appropriate
promises in another language. It is exactly the case to many students of English in Vietnam,
especially students from the thesis author’s training institution.
This leads the author to the decision to conduct a research into “Vietnamese-English
cross-cultural study of Promising” to find out the similarities and differences in making
promises in Vietnamese and English.
II. AIMS OF THE STUDY
The aims of the study are:
- To investigate ways of promising in Vietnamese and English
- To compare and contrast the use of politeness strategies in the two languages and
cultures to point out similarities and differences in the ways the Vietnamese and the English
promise in given situations.
- To contribute to raising language teachers’ and students’ awareness of cross-cultural
differences in the speech act of promising.
III. SCOPE OF THE STUDY
The study is limited within the verbal aspects of the act of promising, in the light of the
politeness theory by Brown and Levinson. Although others factors such as paralinguistic and
extralinguistic ones are important, they are beyond the scope of the thesis.
2
IV. METHODOLOGY
The following methods are resorted to:
- Conducting survey (with questionnaires as a data collection instrument)
- Consulting the supervisor
- Reading relevant publications
- Conducting personal observations
V. DESIGN OF THE STUDY
The thesis consists of three parts
Part A: INTRODUCTION
This part includes the rationale, aims, scope of the study, methodology and design of
the study.
Part B: DEVELOPMENT
This part is divided into two chapters
Chapter I: THEORETICAL PRELIMINARIES
In this chapter, theories of culture, cross-culture, culture-shock, language-culture
interrelationship, speech acts, classifications of speech acts, politeness, politeness principles
and politeness strategies are critically discussed.
Chapter II: DATA ANALYSIS AND FINDINGS
In this chapter, data analysis and findings of the study are presented with the illustration
of tables and charts. The similarities and differences in promising between Vietnamese and
English languages and cultures are drawn from detailed and critical analysis of data.
Part C: CONCLUSION
Summary of the major findings and suggestions for further research are presented in
this part.
3
PART B. DEVELOPMENT
CHAPTER I. THEORETICAL PRELIMINARIES
I.1. CULTURE
I.1.1. What is culture?
Culture is often thought of as shared behavior and beliefs, but in any society, even the
simplest one, all individuals never think and act exactly the same. Different authors have
different definitions of culture.
According to Block (1970:1), “Culture, in its broadest sense, is what makes you a stranger
when you are away from home. It includes all beliefs and expectations about how people should speak
and act which have become a kind of second nature to you as a result of social learning. When you are
with members of a group who share your culture, we or you do not have to think about it, for you are
all viewing the world in pretty much the same way and you all know, in general terms, what to expect
of one another”.
Hoopes (1979:3) defines that: “Culture is the sum of ways of living, including valuablness,
beliefs, esthetic standards, linguistic expression, patterns of thinking, behave norms, and styles of
communication which a group of people develop to assume its survival in a particular physical and
human environment. Culture and the people who are part of it interact. So culture is not static. Culture
is the response of a group of human beings to valid and particular needs of its members. It, therefore,
has an inherent logic and an essential balance between positive and negative dimensions”.
Levine and Alelman (1993) consider culture as “a shared background (for example
national, ethnic, religious) resulting from a common language and communication style, customs,
beliefs, art, music and all the other products of human thought made by a particular group of people at
a particular time. It also refers to the informal and often hidden patterns of human interactions,
expressions and view points that people in one culture share”.
Culture is always the result of human intervention in the biological processes of nature.
It is the product of socially and historically situated discourse communities, created and
shaped by language. So culture is always changing because culture consists of learned patterns
of behavior and belief, cultural traints can be unlearned and learned a new as human need
change. Obviously, language cannot occur alone and is never separated from social activities
and its culture.
4
I.1.2. What is cross-culture?
Cross-culture can be understood as “the meeting of two cultures or languages across
the political boundaries of nation-states” (Kram, 1998: 81).
The term “cross-culture” or “interculture” usually refers to the meeting of two
cultures”. They are predicated on the equivalence of one nation-one culture-one language and
on the expectation that a “culture-shock” may take place upon crossing national boundaries.
cross-culture seeks ways to understand the other on the other side of the border.
According to Richards (1985: 92), “cross-cultural communication is an exchange of ideas,
information, etc…between persons from different backgrounds. There are more problems in cross-
cultural communication than in communication between people of the same cultural background. Each
participant may interpret the other’s speech according to his or her own cultural conventions and
expectations. If the cultural conventions and misunderstandings can easily arise, even resulting in a
total break down of communication. This has been shown by research into real life situations, such as
job interviews, doctor-patient encounters and legal communication”. Thus, cross-cultural
communication is the exchange and negotiation of information ideas, feelings and attitudes
between individuals who come from different cultural backgrounds.
I.1.3. Culture-shock
According to Wikipedia, culture-shock is a term used to describe the anxiety and
feelings (of surprise, disorientation, confuse, etc.) felt when people have to operate within an
entirely different cultural or social environment, such as a foreign country. It grows out of the
difficulties in assimilating the new culture, causing difficulty in knowing what is appropriated
and what is not. This is often combined with strong disgust about certain aspects of the near or
different culture. Harries and Moran (14: 226) state “culture shock is neither good or bad, and
necessary or unnecessary”. It is a reality that many people face when in strange and
unexpected situations.
Foster (1962: 87) assumes that “culture-shock is mental illness, and is true of much mental
illness, the victim usually does not know he is affected. He finds that he is irritable, depressed, and
probably annoyed by the lack of attention shown him”.
Valies states that “culture-shock is a common experience for a person learning a second
language in a second culture. Culture-shock refers to phenomena recognizing from mild irritability to
5
deep psychological panic and crisis. Culture-shock is associated with felling in the learners of
estrangement, anger, hostility, homesickness and even physical illness”.
I.1.4. Language-culture interrelationship
In the “Oxford advanced learner’s Dictionary” (Encyclopedic edition, 1992: 506),
language is defined as “system of sounds, words, patterns etc. used by human to communicate
thoughts and feelings”. Thus, it is clear that whether we talk about food, colors, love, science,
religion, all the meanings are conveyed in not only one language but different languages of the
world.
Language is the principal means whereby we conduct our social lives. It is used in
contexts of communication, it is bound up with culture in multiple and complex ways. Thus,
language is a system of signs that is seen as having itself a cultural value.
According to Sapir (1970: 207), “Language does not exist apart from culture, that is, from
the socially inherited assemblage of practices and beliefs that determines the texture of our lives. He
defines culture as “what society does and thinks” and language is “a particular how of thought”.
In all in, culture influences the way language is used. And in its turn, language plays an
essential role in expressing cultural values and perceptions, as well as preserving and breeding
culture from generation to generation. Language and culture are, thus, interrelated and
inclusive of one another
I.2. SPEECH ACTS
I.2.1. What is a speech act?
Speech act is a term taken from the word of philosophers of language, John Searle and
John Austin in particular who assumes that in saying something, a speaker also does
something.
Making a statement may be the paradigmatic use of language, but there are sort of
other things we can do with words. We can make requests, ask questions, give orders, make
promises, give thanks, offer, apology and so on. Morever, almost any speech act is really the
perform of several acts at once, distinguished by different aspects of the speakers’ intention:
there is the act of saying something, what one does in saying it, such as exclaiming,
requesting, promising and how one is trying to affect one’s audience.
6
Factually, speech act theory was first formulated by the phylosopher John Austin
(1962). According to him, all utterances should be viewed as actions of the speakers, stating or
describing is only one function of language. He points out that the declarative sentences are
not only used to say things or describe states of affairs but also used to do things.
John Austin (1962) defines speech acts as the actions performed in saying something.
When people produce utterances, they often perform actions via those utterances. These
actions are called speech acts: such as apology, complaint, compliment, invitation, promise, or
request. A speech act is part of a speech event. The speech act performed by producing an
utterance, consists of three related acts, namely locutionary act, illocutionary act and
perlocutionary act.
• Locutionary act is the basic act of producing a meaningful linguistic expression.The
locutionary act is performed with some purposes or functions in mind.
• Illocutionary act: is an act performed via the communicative force of an utterance. In
engaging in locutionary acts we generally also perform illocutionary acts such as informing,
advising, offer, promise, etc. In uttering a sentence by virtue of conversational force associated
with it.
• Perlocutionary act is what we bring about or achieve by saying something, such as
convincing, persuading, deterring perlocutionary acts are performed only on the assumption
that the hearer will recognize the effect you intended.
Speech act is generally interpreted quite narrowly to mean only the illocutionary force
of an utterance. The illocutionary act can account as a prediction a promise or a warning.
The two other famous linguistic researchers are Schmidt and Richards who reaffirm
that: Speech act theory has to do with the functions of languages, so in the broader sense we
might say that speech acts are all the acts we perform through speaking, all things we do when
we speak. The theory of speech acts is partly taxonomic and partly explanatory. It must
systematically classify types of speech acts and the ways in which they can succeed or fail. It
must reckon with the fact that the relationship between the words being used and the force of
their utterance is often oblique.
7
Generally speaking, speech acts are acts of communication. To communicate is to
express a certain attitude, and the type of speech act being performed corresponds to type of
attitude being expressed. For example, a statement expresses a belief, an exclamation
expresses a feeling, a request expresses a desire, and an apology expresses a regret. As an act
of communication, a speech act succeeds if the audience identifies in accordance with the
speaker’s intention, the attitude being expressed.
I.2.2. Classification of speech acts
Searle (1976) classifies speech acts into 5 types
• Declaration: these are words and expressions that change the world by the utterance, such as
I bet, I declare, I resign…I hereby pronounce you husband and wife
• Representatives: These are acts in which the words state what the speaker believes to be
the case such as describing, claiming, hypothesis, insisting and predicting.
It was a warm sunny day
• Commissives: This includes acts in which the worlds commit the speaker to future action,
such as “promising, offering, threatening, refusing, vowing and volunteering.
I promise you that I will clean up the kitchen.
• Directives: are speech acts that speakers use to get someone else to do something.They are
commands, orders, requests and suggestions: Oh ! It is five, you had better leave now.
• Expressive are speech acts that state what the speaker feels. They may be statements of
pleasure, pain, likes, dislikes, joy, or sorrow: The meal was delicious!
Similarly, Yule, G. (1996: 55) presents the five general types of speech act which are
shown in the table below:
Speech act types Direction of fit S= Speaker X= Situation
Declarations Words change the world S causes X
Representatives Make words fit the word S believes X
Expressives Make words fit the word S feels X
Directives Make the world fit the word S wants X
Commissives Make the world fit words S intends X
Table 1: The five general functions of speech acts ( Yule, 1996)
Speech acts may be either direct or indirect speech acts depending on the direct and
indirect relationships between their structures and functions.
8
Discussing the aspect of direct and indirect speech act, Searle [40] agrees that the
simplest cases of meaning are these in which the speaker utters a sentence and means exactly
and litterally what he says and defines indirect speech acts as cases where an illocutionary act
is perform directly by way of performing another.
More simply, Yule [54] writes: “Wherever there is a direct relationship between a
structure and a function, we have direct speech act. Whenever there is an indirect relationship
between a structure and a function, we have an indirect speech act”.
Different structure can be used to accomplish the same basic function.
Let us take a look at the following sentences:
a. How thoughtful her grandmother is! c. I don’t refuse to solve that problem for you!
b. How many things he knows! d. What a silly boy he is! Such a big fool!
The basic function of all utterances is exclaiming but only structure in (a) represents a
direct speech act, the negative structure in (b) and (d) are indirect speech act and the
affirmative structure in (c) are also indirect pieces of promising.
I.2.3. Promising as a speech act
When one promises to do something one says, essentially, one is going to do it. As
Searle (1969: 57) puts it, in promising the speaker “ predicates a future act A of S”.
Boguslawaski (1983) has disputed this claim, pointing out that one can also promise that
someone else will do something. In Boguslawski (1983: 612) stresses that words such as want,
wish and similar expressions are inadequate since a formula containing such expressions
would predict that a promise can normally be made by using phrases like I want. This,
however, is by no means, a promise. “ I wish to come your place tomorrow”, “ I intend to
come your place tomorrow”
In Searl’s analysis promise implies that the addressee wants the act to take place. In fact the
speaker seems to assume not only that the addressee wants the act to take place but to assume
that the addressee wants it. On the other hand, from the addressee’s point of view the promised
act must indeed be uncertain, as well as desirable.
According to Vescuneren (1983: 630), promise is the “obligation” which the act imposes on
the speaker. The speaker feels that having promised to do something he will now have to do it
9
(simply because he promised). In other words, by promising something, the speaker offers his
personal credibility in general as a kind of guarantee that he will really perform the action in question.
As regards the illocutionary point of promising, Searle (1979: 2) suggests “the point or
purpose of promise is that it is an undertaking of an obligation by the speaker to do something.
The obligation undertaken in a promise is not an aim in itself. Rather, it is a means of
strengthening”. The assurance given to the addressee, there are many ways to express promise
in English. The words like pledge, vow, assure, swear, certain…we use them in different ways
and situations,
One can say: He promised her that he would do it
As one can say: He assured her that he would do it.
Speech acts can be either explicit or implicit. An explicit promise is one in which the speaker
actually says I promise…For example: I promise that I will return the money tomorrow.
That is, the utterance contain’s an expression, usually a verb, which make the intended act
explicit by naming it. But we do not have to say I promise in order to make a genuine promise.
We can merely say I will return the money tomorrow. When the speech act is not named by a
specific verb in the sentence, we are performing the speech act implicit.
What matters in performing a speech act is not whether it is explicitly named but
whether the act meets certain contextual or background conditions, called felicity or
unappropriated conditions. For examples imagine a situation in which you promise your
teacher to finish an assignment by the beginning of the next class period. For this to count as a
genuine promise, you must say something to the effect that you will finish the assignment by
the next class period, the teacher must want you to complete the assignment by that time, you
must be carried out this task, you must sincerely intend to finish the assignment by that time,
and you must intend your teacher to interpret your remarks as your commitment to finish the
assignment by the next class time.
Promises are distinct from threats, a promised act is one desired by the addressee,
whereas a threatened act is one which the addressee would prefer not to happen.
There are 4 types of felicity conditions.
10
+ The propositional content condition expresses the content of the act. Thus, I will
return the book tomorrow denotes the promised act.
+ The preparatory conditions expresses the contextual background required for a
particular act. For example, I will constitutes a marriage vow only in the context of a real
wedding, a promise requires that the proPmiser be able to perform what s/he promises, a
speaker making an assertion must have evidence to support the assertion.
+ The sincerity condition requires that the speaker be sincere. For example, a
promiser must willingly intend to keep the promise, a speaker who makes an assertion must
believe what she asserts.
+ The essential condition is that the speaker intends the utterance to have a certain
force. For example, someone uttering I promise to return tomorrow, must intend the utterance
to be a commitment to return tomorrow, an assertor must intend the utterance to represent a
true representation of state of affairs.
No doubt, these conditions all seem perfectly ordinary. However, articulating them
makes explicit what we usually take for granted and which we pay attention to only when
things go wrong they are also very useful in helping us to characterize the differences between
speech acts. Promisees are distinct.
I.3. POLITENESS
I.3.1. What is politeness?
Politeness is something that is very abstract, but it plays an important role in
interaction and has a great effect on the use of speech acts in human communication.
Politeness has been suggested that the principle of politeness governs all of the
communication behave.
It is generally believed that, in everyday social interactions, people act in such a way as
to show respect for the face wants or needs of their conversational partners. It is a story,
simply of “you respect my public self-image and I’ll respect yours”. The use of language to
carry out social actions where mutual face wants are respected, can be labeled linguistic
politeness. According to Yule (1996), “politeness in an interaction, can be then defined as the
11
means employed to show awareness of another’s face”. Culturally, politeness is seen as “the idea of
polite social behave or etiquette within a culture”.
Brown and Levinson (1978) view politeness as “a complex system for softening face-threatening acts”.
Hill et al (1986: 349) define politeness as “one of the constraints on human interaction,
whose purpose is to consider other’s feelings establish levels of mutual comfort, and promote
rapport”. Lakoff (1975: 64), one of the pioneers in politeness research sees politeness as
consisting of forms of behave which have been “developed in societies in order to reduce friction
in personal interaction”. This view is supported by many other researchers in the field. He
defines politeness as: “A system of interpersonal relations designed to faliciate interaction by
minimizing the potential for conflict and confrontation inherent in all human interchange”
Leech (1983: 104) interprets politeness as forms of behavior aimed at creating and
maintaining harmonious interactions.
According to Nguyen Quang (2005: 185), “Politeness refers to any communicative act
(verbal and/ or non-verbal) which is intentionally and appropriately meant to make others feel better
or less bad”.
When we make a promise to somebody, we are showing our politeness by expressing
our awareness of another person’s face. In this sense, politeness can be accomplished in
situations of social distance and closeness. To the former, showing awareness for another
person’s face is described in terms of respect or deference. To the latter, it would be
friendliness, camaraderie or solidarity.
Politeness can be accomplished in situations of social distance or closeness. Showing
awareness for another person’s face when that other seems socially distant is often described
in terms of friendliness, camaraderie, or solidarity.
Therefore, the norms of problems are quiet culturally specific in a particular culture.
I.3.2. Politeness principles
A linguistic interaction is a social interaction in which various factors relating to social
distance and closeness are at play. Some of these factors are external to the interaction (social
status, age, power of participants). Other factors are negotiated during the interaction. There
are internal factors. The investigation of the impact of these factors is carried out in terms of
politeness. A speaker says something that is a threat to another personal’face (self- image), it
12
is called a face threatening act. When a speaker says something to lessen a possible threat it is
a face saving act.
According to Nguyen Quang (2005), a person’s negative face is the need to be
independent, to have freedom of action, and not to be imposed on by others. A face saving act
oriented to a person’s negative face is called negative politeness. A person’s positive face is
the need to be accepted by others, to be treated as a member of the same group. A face saving
act concerned with a person’s positive face is called positive politeness.
Lakoff (1975) suggests three politeness rules
Rule 1: Do not impose
There is a difference in power and status between the participants, such as a student and a dean, a
factory worker and the vice- president in charge of personnel. This rule will avoid, or ask permission or
apologize for making the addressee to anything which he/she does not want to do.
Rule 2: Offer options
The participants have approximately equal status and power, but are not socially close such as a
business person and a new client. Offering options means expressing oneself in such a way that one’s
opinion or request can be ignored without being contradicted or rejected.
Rule 3: This is friendly or intimate politeness that encourages feelings of camaraderie. It is
appropriate to intimates or close friends.
According to Grice, these maxims are an intuitive characterization of conversational principles
that would constitude guidelines for achieving maximally efficient communication they must be stated
briefly as follow:
Maxims of Quality:
Be non-spurious (speak the truth, be sincere)
Maxims of Quantity: a) Don’t say less than is required
b) Don’t say more than is required
Maxims of relevance: Be relevant
Maxims of maner:
Be perspicuous, avoid ambiguity and obscurity.
Another author, Leech (1983: 16) assumes that a politeness principle in order to “minimize the
expression of impolite beliefs” with its six maxims as following:
1
Tact maxim:
Minimize cost to other. Maximize benefit to other.
2 Generosity maxim: Minimize benefit to self. Maximize dispraise of self.
3
Approbation maxim
Minimize dispraise of other. Maximize dispraise of self.
13
4
Modesty maxim:
Minimize praise of self. Maximize praise of other.
5
Agreement maxim:
Minimize disagreement between self and other
Maximize agreement between self and other.
6
Sympathy maxim:
Minimize antipathy between self and other
Maximize sympathy between self and other
Above all the maxims, Leech considers the maxim of “Tact” as the most important
kind of politeness in the English-speaking societies. Leech claims that his model could be
applied universally across cultures. But in reality, it can be best applied to English culture
where social distance is given higher value, especially in formal situations. It proves
unsuitable for all situations and societies where social intimacy is highly valued.
According to Brown and Levinson, politeness strategies are developed in order to save
the hearer’s “Face”. Face refers to the respect that an individual has for him or herself, and
maintaining that “self-esteem” in public or in private situations. Usually, you try to avoid
embarrassing the other person, or making them feel uncomfortable. Face Threatening Acts
(FTA’s) are acts that infringe on the hearer’s need to maintain his/self-esteem, and be
respected. Politeness strategies are developed for the main purpose of dealing with these FTA’s.
Face:
Face is something that is emotionally invested, and that can be lost, maintained, or
enhanced, and must be constantly attended to in interaction. In general, people cooperate in
maintaining face in interaction, such cooperation being based on the mutual vulnerability of
face. That is, normally everyone’s face depends on everyone else’ being maintained, and since
people can be expected to defend their faces if threat, and in defending their own to threaten
others’ faces, it is in general in every participant’s best interest to maintain each others’ face,
that is to act in ways that assure the other participants that the agent is heedful of the
assumptions concerning face.
Face, the public self-image that every member wants to claim for himself, consisting in
two related aspects.
Negative face: is our wish not to be imposed on the others and to be allowed to go
about our business unimpeded with our rights to freedom and independence. Negative face is
the want of self-determination. The word “negative” does not mean “bad”, it is just the
14
opposite pole from “ positive”. Thus, telling someone they cannot see the doctor at the time
they expected to is a threat to their negative face.
Positive face: is a person’s wish to be well thought of its manifestation may include
the desire to have what we admire by others, the desire to be understood by others, and the
desire to be treated as a friend and confident. Positive face is the want of approval. Thus, a
complaint about the quality of someone’ work threatens their positive face.
In simple terms, Negative face is the need to be independent and positive face is the
need to be connected.
In short, the concepts of positive face and negative face give rise to different politeness
strategies.
There are four types of politeness strategies, described by Brown and Levinson, that
sum up human “politeness” behavior: Bald on record, Negative politeness, Positive politeness,
and Off- Record-indirect strategy.
On record: a speaker can potentially get any of the following advantages, he can enlist public
pressure against the addressee or in support of himself.
Bald-on-record: efficiency (S can claim that other things are more important than face, or that
the act is not a FTA at all.
Off record: on the other hand, a speaker can profit in the following ways, he can get credit for
being tactful, non-coercive, he can run less risk of his act entering the gossip biography that others
keep of him, and he can avoid responsibility for the potentially face-damaging interpretation.
Positive politeness: a speaker can minimize the face-threatening upsets of an act by assuring
the addressee that S considers himself to be of the same kind.
Negative politeness: A speaker can benefit in the following ways, he can pay respect,
deference to the addressee in return for the FTA, and can thereby avoid incurring
According to Brown and Levinson (1978), strategy types are presented
diagrammatically in figure. The scale given on the left is the degree to which these model
linguistic politeness.
15
Brown and Levinson
Figure 1: Strategies for doing the FTAs (Brown and Levinson, 1987)
Brown and Levinson (1978) assume that every individual has two types of face:
positive and negative. Positive face is defined as the individual desire that her/his wants be
appreciated and approved of in social interaction, whereas negative face is the desire for
freedom of action and freedom from imposition.
I.3.3. Social factors affecting politeness strategies
According to Brown and Levinson (1978), in broad terms, research seems to support
the claim that three sociological factors are crucial in determining the level of politeness which
a speaker (S) will use to an addressee (H); there are relative power (P) of H over S, the social
distance (D) between S and H, and the ranking of the imposition (R) involved in doing the
face-threatening act (FTA).
D is a symmetric social dimension of similarity/difference within which S and H stand for the purposes
of this act. In many cases (but not all ), it is based on an assessment of the frequency of interaction and the kinds
of material or non-material goods (including face) exchanged between S and H (or parties or representing S or H,
or for whom S and H are representatives). An important part of the assessment of D will usually be measures of
social distance based on stable social attributes. The reflex of social closeness is, generally, the reciprocal giving
and receiving of positive face.
P is an asymmetric social dimension of relative power is the degree to which H can impose his own
plans and his own self-evaluation (face) at the express of S’s plans and self-evaluation. In general there are two
sources of pragmatics, either of which may be authorized and authorized-material control (over economic
distribution and physical force) and metaphysical control (over the actions of others, by virtue of metaphysical
forces subscribed to by those others). In most cases an individual’s power is drawn from both these sources, or is
thought to overlap them.
R is a culturally and situationally defined ranking of impositions by the degree to which they are
considered to interfere with an agent’s wants of self-determination or of approval (his negative and positive face
Lesser
Greater
Estimated risk of face
-
loss to addressee
Do the FTA
On record
4. Off-record
1. Without redressive action badly
2. Positive politeness
3. Negative politeness
With redressive action
5. Don’t do the FTA
16
wants). In general, there are probably two such scales or ranks that are emically identifiable for negative-face
FTAs: a ranking of impositions in promotion to the expenditure (a) of services (including the provision of time)
and (b) of goods (including non-material good like information, as well as the expression of regard and other
payments).
In any case, the function must capture the fact that all three dimensions P, D and R
contribute to the seriousness of the FTA, and thus to a determination of the level of politeness
with which, other things being equal, the FTA will be communicated.
I.3.4. Politeness strategies
I.3.4.1. Positive politeness strategies
Brown and Levinson (1978) assume that positive politeness is redress directed to the
addressee’s positive face, his perennial desire that his wants (or the actions/acquisitions/values
resulting from them) should be thought of as desirable. Redress consists in partially satisfying
that desire by communicating that one’s own wants (or some of them) are in some respects
similar to the addressee’s wants
Positive politeness strategies (PPS) are those that are used to satisfy positive face
wants. They include:
Strategy 1: Notice/attend to H (interest, wants, needs…)
When communicating, S cares for H’s wants or needs:
Vietnamese: Mình ngh rng cuc sng không phi lúc nào cng hnh phúc. Cu hãy gng
vt qua nhng khó khn này.
( I think that life is not always happy. Try to overcome these difficulties)
Hôm nay trông cu p quá, cu có chuyn gì à?(Today, you look so beautiful. Something new?)
English: You must be hungry. How about some cakes?
Strategy 2: Exaggerate (interest, approval, sympathy with H)
It is the way S shows his/her concern by expressing that he/ she is really interested in H’s news
Vietnamese: English:
Bn tht là tuyt vi .( You are exellent!) I am really honored!
Strategy 3: Intensify interest to H
S communicates with H, he shares some of his wants to intensify the interest of his own
contributions to the conversation.
17
Vietnamese: Mt ch c quan em có chng là nhà báo. Mt ln ã i thc t vit bài v
nn phá rng ã b bn lâm tc phc kích và hành hung. ng yên ng lành thì t nhiên
bây gi li thành tàn ph nhân, ngi xe ln, n cm út. y, m i ngi mt phn, nên anh b
th này còn nh lm.
(A woman’s husband at my work place is a journalist. Once on a business trip to collect
information about deforestation, he was ambushed and assaulted. Form a very fit man now he
is a disabled one on trolley and fed by his wife every day. See, every one has his own fate,
therefore, you are lucky at your pain.)
English : Last night I went to that shop. I buy some things from him, he is all right, isn’t
he? He speaks nicely. Today I heard that he has dead and gone and I was very surprised.
Strategy 4: Use in-group identity markers.
Some ways of address forms can be used flexibly and effectively in this strategy.
Vietnamese:
Chúng mình s! i xem phim ln khác nhé. (We will go to the cinema another time!)
Anh c" yên tâm, em s! làm cho ám c#i c$a cháu nhà mình tht vui v%
(Take it eassy. I will make our kid’s wedding so happy.)
English: Mate! I will help you. Take it easy.
Strategy 5: Seek agreement.
With this strategy, S stresses his/her agreement with H, and therefore, satisfies H’s desire to be
“right”, or to be corroborated in his opinions. There are 4 different policies in order to reach
agreement between S and H.
Using safe topics Using minimal encouragers
Repeating Agreeing.
Vietnamese: Tôi rt tán thành v#i ý kin c$a anh. ( I quite agree with your idea)
Tôi ng ý giúp anh. Tôi h"a. ( I agree to help you. I promise!)
English: If you want me to conduct your wedding, I will be OK.
Strategy 6: Avoid disagreement.
In communication, Brown and Levinson suggest 4 policies:
Token agreements White lies
18
Pseudo-agreement Hedging opinions
Vietnamese: English:
Em ghét anh lm à? ( Do you hate me?) A: Do you understand what I am saying?
Th&nh thong thôi. (Sometimes.) B: More or less
Strategy 7: Presuppose, raise, assert common ground.
3 policies are realized in this strategy.
Small talk Deixis inversion Presupposition manipulations.
Vietnamese: Ch'ng l! thông minh nh bn mình mà cu li không hi(u mình ang ngh gì à
(Perhaps, intelligent as we are, you can see what is in my mind. You are such an intelligent person)
English: We both are surely tired now. Let’s relax for some minutes.
Strategy 8: Joke.
Making jokes is considered to be one of the useful way to communicate between S and H. S
can share background knowledge, values, goals and sensitivity to H.
Vietnamese: Con gì n lm nói nhiu, mau già lâu cht òi yêu sut i
(What eats and talks too much, soon old, loving a live, everlasting asking for love)
English: OK if I tackle those cookies now?
Strategy 9: Assert or presuppose knowledge of and concern for H’s want.
This strategy indicates that S and H are cooperators of and thus potentially to put pressure on
H to cooperate with S, is to assert or imply knowledge of H’s wants and willingness to fit
one’s own wants in with them.
Vietnamese: Mình tin rng cu s! tha th" cho mình.(I firmly believe that you will forgive me!)
English: I know you cannot bear parties, but this one will really be good-do come!
Strategy 10: Offer, promise.
This strategy is used to gain the solidarity or cooperation between S and H, S often offer or
promise to do something in order to satisfy for the H.
Offers or promises are divided in to two types (indefinite and definite) through 2 main deixis:
time and space:
If time and space are definite, the promise/offer is definite
If time and space are indefinite, the promise/offer is indefinite.
