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

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

PHAN THỊ NGỌC BÍCH

POLITENESS STRATEGIES IN THE CONVERSATIONS IN THE LISTENING SECTIONS OF
THE COURSEBOOK
“INNOVATIONS PRE-INTERMEDIATE”

CÁC CHIẾN LƯỢC LỊCH SỰ ĐƯỢC SỬ DỤNG TRONG CÁC ĐOẠN HỘI THOẠI Ở PHẦN NGHE
CỦA GIÁO TRÌNH

“INNOVATIONS - PRE-INTERMEDIATE”

M.A. Minor Thesis

Field: English Linguistics
Code: 60.22.15

HÀ NỘI – 2013

1


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

PHAN THỊ NGỌC BÍCH

POLITENESS STRATEGIES IN THE CONVERSATIONS IN THE LISTENING SECTIONS OF
THE COURSEBOOK
“INNOVATIONS PRE-INTERMEDIATE”

CÁC CHIẾN LƯỢC LỊCH SỰ ĐƯỢC SỬ DỤNG TRONG CÁC ĐOẠN HỘI THOẠI Ở PHẦN NGHE
CỦA GIÁO TRÌNH

“INNOVATIONS - PRE-INTERMEDIATE”

M.A. Minor Thesis

Field: English Linguistics
Code: 60.22.15
Supervisor: Dr. Tran Thi Thu Hien

HÀ NỘI – 2013

2


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.

3


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.

4


TABLE OF CONTENT
Acknowledgment
Abstract
List of tables
List of abbreviations

1

INTRODUCTION ………………………………………………………..

1

1. Rationale…………………………………………………………..

2

2. Aims of the study………………………………………………….

3

3. Scope of the study………………………………………………….

3

4. Significant of the study …………………………………………….

3

5. Design of the study ………………………………………………..

5

CHAPTER 1: THEORETICAL BACKGROUND……………………….

5

Face theories …………………………………………………..

5

1.1.1. Face …………………………………………………………

6

1.1.2. Face threatening acts………………………………………..

8

1.1.3. Politeness ……………………………………………………

9

1.1.4. Politeness strategies ………………………………………..

11

1.1.4.1. Bald on-record strategy …………………………...

12

1.1.4.2. Off record strategy ………………………………...

13

1.1.

5

1.1.4.3. Positive politeness strategy ……………………….

15

1.1.4.4. Negative politeness strategy ………………………

16

1.2. Conversation ……………………………………………………….

18

CHAPTER 2: METHODOLOGY ……………………………………..

18

2.1 . Data collection …………………………………………………….

18

2.2 Participants ………………………………………………………….

19

2.3 . Research method …………………………………………………..

19

2.4 . Research procedure ………………………………………………..

21

CHAPTER 3: FINDINGS AND DISCUSSION ………………………

22

3.1. Positive politeness strategies ………………………………………

32

3.2. Negative politeness strategies …………………………………….

36

CONCLUSION………………………………………………………….

36

1.

Summary……………………………………………………….

37

2.

Implications…………………………………………………….

38

3.

Limitations …………………………………………………...

40

REFERENCE …………………………………………………………….
APPENDIX ……………………………………………………………..

6

43


7


List of tables
Table 1: Frequency of positive politeness strategies
Table 2: Frequency of negative politeness strategies

8


List of abbreviations
FTA: Face Threatening Act
e.g: for example

9

INTRODUCTION
1. Rationale
Language plays an integral role in social life, which is not only a tool for people to
communicate but also to identify with a particular cultural group. Language can reflect
the way people live and think as well as the culture of a country, an ethnic. Among
languages all over the world, English is considered the most widely used language
because it is becoming the common language on the Internet and in the world. English
not only is the effective means of communication but also shows its progressive effects in
many aspects of life. English, for many people, is especially useful because it can
broaden their employment opportunities, since it is used so commonly and widely in
business. Employers of multilateral institutions and agencies recruit employees with
professional skills also expect the candidates to have good English-speaking skills. In
today‟s world, English serves as a medium for communication for not only people in
English speaking country but also learners of English as second and foreign language. As
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
10

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 – Preintermediate‖, 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:
11


-

How are positive and negative politeness strategies used in the

conversations in listening sections in the course book “Innovations – Preintermediate”?
-

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:

12


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

13

CHAPTER 1: THEORETICAL BACKGROUND
1.1. Face theories
Brown, P. & Levinson, S. C.‟s theory rests on three basic notions, that is to say, Face,
Face Threatening Acts (henceforth FTAs) and Politeness Strategies. When taking
another‟s feeling into consideration, people speak or put things into such a way to
minimize potential threat in the interaction. In other words, they use politeness strategies.
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

14


contribute to interaction. Generally, the cooperation that people cooperate in order to
maintain face in interaction is based on the mutual sensitivity of face.

In human interaction, Brown, P. & Levinson, S. C. (1987) consider the two following
principles are most important:
-

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
15

interaction, such act as apology, request or complement may cause the participants of the
conversation not to feel comfortable.
To save hearer‟s face in communication is not feasible because it might contradict the
speaker‟s wants. In such circumstance, it is possible for the speaker to say or act
something threatening the face of the hearer, which is called a face threatening act.
Similarly, Brown, P. & Levinson, S. C. (1978) address the FTA by stating that once the
face wants of either speaker or hearer are opposed, speech acts have the risk of being
threatened. Brown, P. & Levinson, S. C. (1978) also indicate the difference between the
two distinctive aspects: (1) whether positive or negative face is being threatened, and (2)
whether speaker or hearer is threatened. Both verbal and nonverbal acts are consisted in a
face threatening act. To add more detail, Brown, P. & Levinson, S. C. (1978) explain that
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.
16

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: egopreserving 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
17


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.”
1.1.4. Politeness strategies
During the last thirty years, the linguistic politeness phenomena have been researched
from the various perspectives. Among many studies in this field, Brown, P. & Levinson,
S. C.‟s politeness theory (1987) is reckoned to have weightiness in this field and has a
great influence on politeness research. This paper is also based on Brown, P. & Levinson,
S. C.‟s Politeness Theory which regards politeness phenomena as linguistic strategies in
order to redress face-threatening act.
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.
18


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
19


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. &
Levinson, S. C. (1987:96)

Also, ―channel noise‖ in which maximum efficiency is spoken with due to the pressure
exerted by challenges of communication. For example, ―Come home right now‖ is stated
when there is distance between the two people so the speaker has to call across (Brown,
P. & Levinson, S. C., 1987:97)
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)
20


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
21


4. Understating
5. Overstating
6. Using tautologies
7. Using contradictions
8. Being ironic
9. Using metaphors
10. Using rhetorical questions
11. Being ambiguous
12. Being vague
13. Over-generalization
14. Displacing hearer
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
22


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

5.

Seek agreement

6.

Avoid disagreement

7.

Presuppose/raise/assert common ground

8.

Joke

9.

Asset or presuppose S‟s knowledge of and concern for hearer‟s wants

10.

Offer/ Promise

11.

Be optimistic

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
23


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:
1.

Be conventionally indirect

2.

Question, hedge

3.

Be pessimistic

4.

Minimize the imposition

5.

Give deference

6.

Apologize

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
24


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.
1.2.

Conversation

Although when mentioning conversation, people think of the major proportion of most
people‟s daily language, there are still different definitions of conversation (Thornbury,
S. & Slade, D., 2006). As stated in Oxford dictionary, conversation is a talk, especially an

25