politeness strategies in requests in the thorn birds chiến lược lịch sự trong lời thỉnh cầu trong tiếng chim hót trong bụi mận gai

VIETNAM NATIONAL UNIVERSITY, HANOI
UNIVERSITY OF LANGUAGES AND INTERNATIONAL STUDIES
FACULTY of POST-GRADUATE STUDIES






NGUYỄN THỊ PHƯƠNG THẢO


Politeness strategies in requests
in “The thorn birds”
(Chiến lược lịch sự trong lời thỉnh cầu trong
"Tiếng Chim Hót Trong Bụi Mận Gai”)

M.A. MINOR PROGRAMME THESIS


Field: English Linguistics
Code: 60.22.15

HANOI – 2010




VIETNAM NATIONAL UNIVERSITY, HANOI
UNIVERSITY OF LANGUAGES AND INTERNATIONAL STUDIES
FACULTY of OF POST-GRADUATE STUDIES





NGUYỄN THỊ PHƯƠNG THẢO


Politeness strategies in requests
in “The thorn birds”
(Chiến lược lịch sự trong lời thỉnh cầu trong
"Tiếng Chim Hót Trong Bụi Mận Gai”)

M.A. MINOR PROGRAMME THESIS


Field: English Linguistics
Code: 60.22.15
Supervisor: Trần Bá Tiến, M.A.

HANOI – 2010

4




Table of contents
Declaration……………………………………………………………………………….
Acknowledgement………………………………………………………………………
Abstract . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ………………………. …………

i
ii
iii
Abbreviations. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ……… ……………
vi
Part A: Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ……………………
1
1. Rationale. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . …………………
2
2. Aims of the study. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ……………… …
2
3. Scope of the study . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . …………… ….
4. Overview of the work. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ……………
2
2

5. Methods of the study . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ………………… .
3
6. Design of the study . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ………………… .
3
Part b: Development. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ……………… ….
4
Chapter 1: Theoretical background. . . . . . . . . ……………………
4
1.1 The Speech act. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . …………… .
4
1.1.1 Speech act performance . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
4
1.1.2 Locutionary act, Illocutionary act, Perlocutionary act. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
1.1.3 Speech act classifications . . . . . . . ………………………. . … . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
1.1.4 The speech act of request . . . . . . . . . . . ………………………………………….
5
6
7
1.2 Politeness and indirectness in requests. . . . . . . . . . . . . . ……. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
9
1.2.1. Theory of politeness . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . …………… . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
9
1.2.1.1 Politeness principles . . . . . . . . . . ……………………………. . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
1.2.1.2 The face-management view on politeness. . . . . . . . . . . . …………… . . . . . .
10
14
1.2.1.2.1 Face. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ………… . . . . . . . . . . .
11
1.2.1.2.2 Face threatening acts . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
1.2.1.2.3 Politeness strategies. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . …………… . . . . . . . . . .

15
16
1.2.2 Social factors affecting politeness. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ……………… . . . . . . . . .
1.2.3 Scales of indirectness in requests ………………………………….……………
18
19
Chapter 2: Politeness strategies in requests in “The Thorn Birds”
22
5



2.1 Positive politeness strategies in requests in “The Thorn Birds” . . . . . . . . . . . . .
22
2.1.1 Strategy 1: Notice, attend to H (his interests, wants, needs, goods) . . . . . . . . . . . .
22
2.1.2 Strategy 2: Exaggerate (interest, approval, sympathy with H) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
23
2.1.3 Strategy 3: Intensify interest to H. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . …………… .
23
2.1.4 Strategy 4: Use in-group identity markers. . . . . . . . . . ……….…… . . . . . . . . . .
24
2.1.5 Strategy 5: Seek agreement. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ………………. . . . . .
24
2.1.6 Strategy 6: Avoid disagreement. . . . . . . . . . . . . ……………. . . . . . . . . . . . . .
25
2.1.7 Strategy 7: Presuppose / raise / assert common ground. . . . . . …………… . . . .
26
2.1.8 Strategy 8: Joke. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . …………… . . . . .
26

2.1.9 Strategy 9: Assert or presuppose S‟s knowledge of and concern for H‟s wants…
27
2.1.10 Strategy 10: Offer, promise. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . …………… . . . . .
27
2.1.11 Strategy 11: Be optimistic. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . …………… . . . . . .
27
2.1.12 Strategy 12: Include both S and H in the activity. . . . . . . ……………. . . . . . .
27
2.1.13 Strategy 13: Give (or ask for) reasons. . . . . . . . . . . ……………. . . . . . . . . . . . .
28
2.1.14 Strategy 14: Assume or assert reciprocity. . . . . . . . . . . ……………… . . . . . . . .
28
2.1.15 Strategy 15: Give gifts to H (goods, sympathy, understanding, cooperation)
28
2.2 Negative politeness strategies manifested in requests in “The Thorn Birds” . .

28
2.2.1 Strategy 1: Be conventionally indirect. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . …………… . . . . .
28
2.2.2 Strategy 2: Question, hedge. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . …………… . . . . .
29
2.2.3 Strategy 3: Be pessimistic. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . …………… . . . . .
30
2.2.4 Strategy 4: Minimize the imposition. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ……………… . . . . . .
30
2.2.5 Strategy 5: Give deference. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ……………… . . .
31
2.2.6 Strategy 6: Apologize. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . …………… . . . . . . . . .
32
2.2.7 Strategy 7: Impersonalise S and H. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . …………… . . .

32
2.2.8 Strategy 8: State the FTA as a general rule. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ……………… . . . .
32
2.2.9 Strategy 9: Nominalize. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . …………… . . . .
32
2.2.10 Strategy 10: Go on record as incurring a debt, or as not indebting H . . . . . . . . . .
33
2.3 Politeness strategies in requests in “The Thorn Birds” seen from S-H relationship. .
34
2.3.1 Lovers. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . …………… . . . . . . . .
35
2.3.2 Family members. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ……. . . . . . . . . . . .
35
2.3.3 Acquaintances. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ……………… . . . . .
36
6



2.3.4 Strangers. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ……………………
36
PART C: CONCLUSION. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ………………………
38
REFERENCES . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ……
40

7

Abbreviations

FTA : Face Threatening Act
H : Hearer/Addressee
S : Speaker/Addresser
S.A : Speech act
D : Distance
P : Relative power
R : Absolute ranking of imposition
e.g. : For example
i.e. : That is to say
et. al. : and others
8




Part A: Introduction

1. Rationale
The basic function of language is “very similar in different societies, though
with different linguistic conventions, in all parts of the world, because all people
have similar needs, similar relationships, and in general share the same world” Robin
(1952:6). This idea must be shared by the fact that language is created as a necessary
demand of human life with the final aim, that is for communication in which people
exchange information and express their opinions and attitudes. However, how people
communicate successfully in certain contexts has inspired to the linguists whose
research has contributed a lot to the development of communication among human
beings.
Any beginning-level Vietnamese students of English easily form the

following sentences correctly as firstly having a conversation with an English-
speaking person: Are you married? How old are you? But it is rather difficult for that
foreigner to accept such personal questions. That is the reason why Richards
(1992:32) makes a distinction between the two notions linguistic competence and
communicative competence, which refers to “….the ability not only to apply the
grammatical rules of a language in order to form grammatically correct sentences
but also to know when and where to use these sentences and to whom.” This
statement highly appreciates the important role of cultural knowledge in
contributing to a successful communication. Being aware of the active part of
communication competence is along with setting up appropriate strategies in
teaching English for Vietnamese students by giving out variable cultural and social
contexts in each English class. And it is advisable to choose politeness situations to
illustrate in such those cases because politeness is one of the most great elements
effecting the choice of language: “When learning a second language, one needs to
acquire the new culture‟s politeness framework, which is very different from that of
one‟s own culture” (Celce-Murcia et al 2000:26). Strategies to choose language
politely, in fact, reflects most on the way people making a request because request
shortly means “to ask your hearer whether he is willing or able to do something”
(Leech & Svartvik, 1975:147). Furthermore, during process of researching, we
9



realize that so far little research has focused on politeness strategies in requests in a
literature work.
Literature is, as being judged, a reflection of society and culture. And the fact
that the more a literary work reflects the present life truthfully and vividly, the more
successful it will get, since it is said that art is for human sakes, not for art sakes.
Therefore language, especially daily language in the literary works will also be
presented vividly. And conversational language in a great novel, apparently, is

reliable for our observation
For those reasons presented above, we decided to choose the topic:
“Politeness strategies in requests in “The thorn birds”
2. Aims of the study
- To explore how politeness strategies are manifested in the requests in the
English language appropriately.
- To investigate the ways characters in a literary work operate their requests
politely in their conversations.
3. Scope of the study
Among linguistic, paralinguistic and non-verbal aspects related to politeness,
our study only deals with the first one. It focuses on positive and negative politeness
strategies based on Brown & Levinson‟s (1987) theoretical framework. And the data
is based on all of the utterances containing the requests made by characters in “The
Thorn Birds”.
4. Overview of the work
“The Thorn Birds”- as the comment of Sweetie Pie in his “A Book Review of
The Thorn Birds”: “Of all of Colleen McCullough's novels, The Thorn Birds made
the greatest impact on my ideas of what a great book should be. I was drawn into the
story and could not put it down until I finished it a week later”- one of the great
works of every time was written by an amateur writer- Collen McCullough in 1976.
Being different from some previous works, all whose theme is also about the history
of a family in Australia, but they almost reflect the development and the
degeneration of the bourgeoisie class. “The Thorn Birds” is the story of three
generations in a labour family named Cleary. The next generations, instead of
refusing the tradition values left by the previous, inherit and develop those.
Simultaneously, getting good characteristics of family such as hard-working,
10

independence, steady enough to pass hard life, they also make some positive changes
to catch up with the development of the age. If Fiona- the first generation is brave
enough to suffer from every misfortune but give no struggle for the fate, her daughter
Meggie- a modern girl tries to get her happiness from the hand of God-having a baby
with a priest who she loves, and Justine- Meggie‟s daughter has a quietly different
moral standards There are many characters in the novel but the noble ones are Fiona
(Fee), Meggie, a priest named Ralph and most of the incidents are surrounded by the
love story full of hindrance but romantic between Meggie and Ralph.
The development of the novel is not only exposed via the meticulous
description of the novelist but importantly, by the conversations among the
characters in which we try to find how the characters operate their request politely.
5. Methods of the study
Generally, the thesis employed the Quantitative Method, which is defined as a
research method that relies less on interviews, observations, small numbers of
questionnaires, focus groups, subjective reports and case studies but is much more
focused on the collection and analysis of numerical data and statistics. Counting and
measuring are common forms of quantitative methods. The result of the research is a
number, or a series of numbers. These are often presented in tables, graphs or other
forms of statistics which is the science and practice of developing human knowledge
through the use of empirical data.
6. Design of the study
The thesis comprises three main parts:
Part A: Introduction
This part includes five sub- parts: the rationale, aims, scope, methods and
design of the study.
Part B: Content
This is the nuclear part of the whole study containing three chapters.
Chapter 1: Theoretical background
This chapter makes an overview of the theories on Speech Act, Speech Act of
request and Politeness theory which are treated as the major grounds for the analysis

work.
11



Chapter 2: The study of politeness strategies manifested in requests in
conversations in “The Thorn Birds”
This chapter finds out how characters in the novel cover politeness strategies
in requests in their conversations.
Part C: Conclusion
This part summarize somewhat has discussed in the above two parts and give
some suggestions for further study .
12



Part B: development
Chapter 1: Theoretical background
This chapter provides an overview of the theoretical background of the
research. It is divided into 2 main sections. Section 1.1 discusses the key notions of
speech act theory and how requests have been defined in speech theory. Section 2.2
discusses the two major issues, politeness theory and indirectness in requests.
1.1 The Speech Act theories
1.1.1. Speech Act performance
S.A is always an interesting topic for many linguists such as Hymes (1964),
Searl (1969), Levinson (1983), Brown and Yule (1983), Smith and Richards (1983)
Their works about it seems to never end because, firstly it is related to language
which may be changed time by time, and vary hugely from a place to another;
secondly studying S.A is to find out how people deal with their own language to
communicate effectively which indeed differs from society to society, even in the

same region.
S.A was first introduced by Austin (1962), but before him, there were still
some other theorists whose ideas, to some extent, are quite different from Austin‟s.
For example, Moore views “language of common sense” and Bertrand Russell sees
everyday language as “is somehow deficient and defective”. Then they have an
ambitious to idealize language by removing its imperfections and illogicalities.
In contrast, Austin claimed that there is no point in depriving the
imperfections of language, instead during communication process people should
consider how to use and manage with it effectively and appropriately. And this
reaction performs as his background to approach the term “ Speech Act” which is
defined in his famous book “How to do things with words”(1962) as “ We must
consider the total situation in which the utterance is issued- the total Speech Act- if
we are to see the parallel between the statements and performative utterances”
(1962:52). Later, G.Yule explicits the term “total situation” that in order to reach an
effective communication, both S and H are usually helped by the circumstances
surrounding the utterances what he calls “speech event”. Thus, they share one thing
that S.A must be put in certain situation in order to be interpreted appropriately. He
13



takes an example with the utterance: “This tea is really cold!” If this sentence is
uttered on a winter day, it is likely interpreted as a complaint but supposing on a
really hot summer day, it may be considered a praise. Agreeing with what Austin
stated before, G.Yule redefined S.A as “Actions performed via utterances are
generally called Speech Acts and, in English, are commonly given more specific
labels, such as apology, complaint, invitation, promise, or request”
Again, in Austin‟s definition, appearing the term “performative” which he
uses in another phrase “Performative hypothesis”. This term realizes words as
actions. This is considered one of significant exploration not only particularly to him

but generally to a new step of language study. Because before him, the others
linguists with their term “truth- conditional approach” consider people‟s utterances to
be always either true or false. And then he gives more explanation by giving a clear
distinction between “constative” and “performative”. According to him, “constative”
means an utterance can be judge to be true or false; for example, the sentence “This
woman is 30 years old” is true if the age of the woman is 30, but false if the woman
is at the other age. Performative, however is considered under different view
:“People not only use language to fit it with the world but also to perform actions via
utterances, that may, in some way change the world ” (Quoted in Dang Thi Manh,
2005:11). The following sentence: “There is a snake on your feet” can not be judged
to be true or false but a warn toward the H and force him to give an action to solve
the problem (eg: stand quietly until the snake goes away). Performatives can be
given explicitly and implicitly. The implicit performative is illustrated in the example
above, for the explicit performative, we have sentence : Stop smoking!
1.1.2. Locutionary act, Illocutionary act, Perlocutionary act
The action performed via an utterance always consists of three related acts.
The first is named “locutionary” which involves the basic act of an utterance
or produces a meaningful linguistic expression. Someone who finds himself
incapable of uttering a certain language (for example, because those who are tongue-
tied or foreign) cannot produce a locutionary act. A Vietnamese production of
14



“hsihfdru” will not normally count as a locutionary act because the utterance is
nonsense, not fecilitous to the rules of Vietnamese language.
People do not create a meaningful sentence without any purpose. Hence, what
participants intend to achieve via language in a communication process is called
“Illocutionary act”. The illocutionary act is performed via the communication force
of an utterance, generally known as the illocutionary force. S may use language to

promise, warn, request, deny, apology However in different contexts, an utterance
can be interpreted differently. For example, when somebody produces the English
locutionary act “The dog is very fierce”, he might want to warn the other not to touch
the dog or the sentence can be considered as a request to ask the host keep the dog in
a stage.
The illocutionary act will have some effect on the H. This effect is
perlocutionary act. With the same utterance but under different situations, the H will
interpret in different ways. If the sentence “Where are you going?” occurs between
two people in Vietnam the H can understand it just a greeting, thus, no need to
answer but he can gives his Perlocutionary act by saying “Hi!” .Yet we can not
apply such effect with the people from other countries. When a Perlocutionary act
coincides with a Illocutionary act, then the communication is successful.
Among those three dimensions, Illocutionary act is interpreted rather
identically with Speech Act: language implies actions. So far, S.A also means
Illocutionary act and two terms can be used alternatively.
“The distinction is necessary for accomplishing communicative
effectiveness, because an individual Locutionary act may have different
Illocutionary forces and require different Perlocutionary act. In order to
have the best interpretation and react in the right manner, the H need to
utilize many other factors than just the linguistic expression he hears”
(quoted in Dang Thi Manh, 2005:6)
Above all, all S.As (especially performative) depend for their effectiveness
on various facility conditions being satisfied. Yule (1996:50) calls these conditions
as: general conditions, preparatory conditions, sincerity conditions, content
conditions, essential conditions. And Jackson and Stock Well explicit those as
follow: “The utterance must be said by the right person to the right person, in the
right place, at the right time, in the right manner.”(1996:140).
15

1.1.3. Speech act classifications.
Many linguists try to classify Speech act such as Austin with five categories:
verdictive, exercitive, commisive, behabitive and expositive. Among them,
verdictives are typified by the giving of verdict by a judge, a jury, or an arbitrator.
Exercitves involve of a decision which either supports or rejects a certain action.
Commisives are speech acts which commit the speaker to a certain course of action,
e.g a promising or contracting. Behabitives are reaction to other people‟s behaviors
or attitude to someone‟s past actions. And expositives include the acts of exposition
involving the expounding of views, the conducting of arguments…
However, later, some other linguists such as Searl and Leech (1983) criticize
this classification to be rather overlap. Then Searl gives another classification system
including five types: assertives (representatives), directives, commissives,
expressives, and declaratives.
- Assertives (representatives) shows the S‟s commitment to the truth of
utterance. It sates the fact, assertions, conclusions, and descriptions. In the statement:
“His forehead is hot. He must be ill” (conclusion), the S expresses his strong belief
to what he says.
- Declaratives are sorts of Speech acts that make the world change via
utterances, e.g: dismissing, naming, appointing In order to have an appropriate
declaration, it must be in a specific context or even by a person with certain role in
society:
Eg: Priest: I pronounce you husband and wife.
Jury: I sentence you six months imprisonment.
- Expressives are used to express feelings and attitudes about something such
as an apology, a complaint, a regret
Eg: Your hands are too dirty (a complaint)
I‟m sorry for being late (an apology)
- Directives are aimed to get the H to do something such a request, an order, a
suggestion, a command

Eg: You must move it out immediately. (request)
- Commissives commit S to do something in the future such a promise/ threat.
Eg: If you get good marks, I will give you a present.
16



1.1.4 The speech act of request
According to Searle‟s (1979) classification system of speech acts, request falls
into the directives. Its function is that the speaker attempts to get the hearer to do
something by means of what he says or as “an act of asking for something in speech
or writing, especially politely” (in Oxford Advanced Learner‟s Dictionary, 1992:
768).
Eg: “Won‟t you kiss me goodbye” (p. 276) - ask for a kiss goodbye.
“Will you leave me alone, will you” (p. 295) - ask the H to leave him/her
alone.
In request, it is always the requester who directly or indirectly benefits from
the act at the cost of the requestee and threats his “face.” In day- to- day interactions
between the members of a community, each action is performed to maintain
someone‟s “face” and to avoid losing “face.” Since a requester appeals to the
requestee‟s assistance, he/ she is potentially threatening the requestee‟s “negative
face.” The intensity of this threat varies with the level of imposition of the requested
act and the conditions under which the request is made. For instance, when someone
asks another the way to the hospital, the requested “matter” is not likely to threaten
the requestee‟s face very much. Of course, this cannot be the case when a request
involves greater imposition or restriction on the requestee‟s freedom, such as lending
money or giving a lift. Therefore, on one hand, to maximize the chance that a listener
will catch the speaker‟s intention in requesting, the speaker should use directives that
are clear and emphatic. On the other hand, to maximize the chance that a listener will
comply with the request, the speaker should use directives that are polite or indirect.

For example: This room would look a lot better if you dusted it.
You have time enough to dust before you go.
Didn‟t you ask me to remind you to dust this place?
As usual, a request includes 2 main parts, a head act and additional elements
which consist of Alerter, Perspective and the Modification. The Head Act is the
minimal unit which is the core of the request sequence. Alerter is an element whose
function is to draw H‟s attention to what is uttering, e.g: Mrs, Ms, James, excuse
me…. Perspective is inferred as a choice made by the S whose want or wish is
emphasized or dominant in the request (Song-Mei,1993) and it is coded as follows:
17



1. Hearer perspective: Can you show me your driving license, please.
2. Speaker perspective: Could I see your driving license, please?
3. Inclusive: Could we swap cars?
4. Impersonal: Can one ask for a little quiet?
(Blum-Kulla et. al, 1989:278)
As far as the modification is concerned, it is divided into two terms: internal
and external modification. Internal modification is defined as elements within the
Head Act which can perform as indicating devices affecting pragmatic force. These
elements are downgraders and upgraders. However as far as the politeness value of
requests is concerned, downgraders is regarded. And there are various ways to
recognize them.
Eg: In making a request S majorly reduce pressure on H with politeness marker
“please”
“Please let me see her” (p. 371)
Whereas external modification is something happening outside the Head Act.
Its function is to mitigate or aggravate the speaker‟s request that help to reduce the
imposition in H.

Eg: “I don’t want to say this but I think I have to. It‟s time you found yourself a
girl”
(p. 114)
By using Disarmer (in above bold sentence) which indicate that the S doesn‟t
wish to make the request but he/she is forced by circumstances to do so, the S try to
soften the impact of the request on the H. And in this novel we consider all of these
factors that occur surround an utterance of request to access politeness strategies.
In conclusion, requesting is one kind of speech acts used variously and
widely in human interactions. Different requests are made to accomplish different
purposes, so it seems likely that requests for different purposes might be made using
a different style. However, in each request, the S often try to increase his/her
politeness in various ways.
1.2 Politeness and indirectness in request
1.2.1 Theory of politeness
In social interaction, people always try to make their speech as polite as
possible. In most of the studies, the politeness has been conceptualized especially as
18



strategic conflict-avoidance or as strategic construction of cooperative human
communication. Yule (1996) generalized politeness as “the means employed to
show awareness of another person´s face” … and as “the idea of polite social
behavior or etiquette, within a culture involves certain general principles as being
tactful, generous, modest, sympathetic towards others”(G. Yule. 1996: 60).
Referring to requests in particular, a native speaker of the language uses
certain strategies in order to maintain norms and principles that form part of social
interaction. As Bonn (2000:32) exposes.
“Speaking in a polite manner involves being aware of the effect a particular
illocutionary force has on one´s addressee, and aggravating or mitigating this

force by applying a suitable degree of modification.”
One of these degrees of modification is Politeness. Every time a speaker
performs a request, he/she is acquainted with the fact that conversations follow
particular conventions and organizational principles. Strategies to perform requests
vary according to context and along factors such as social power, role and status.
And every speaker has the necessity to be appreciated by others and to feel that nobody
is interfering with him (Renkema,1999: 27).
Fraser (1990) summarizes that there have been 4 major approaches to
politeness:
1) In the pre-pragmatic studies, many scholars had mentioned politeness and
considered it as a social norm.
2) Lakoff (1973, 1989) and Leech (1983) approach politeness from the
perspective of conversational maxims, connecting their study with Grice‟s
conversational maxims.
3) Brown & Levinson (1987) study politeness as strategies employed by the
speakers to obtain or to save “face”.
4) Fraser (1990) sees politeness from the aspect of conversational contract.
(quoted in Dang Thi Manh 2005:7)
Of all those views, the conversational – maxim view of Leech & Lakoff and
the face – management view of Brown & Levinson (1987) are most appreciated and
popularly discussed.
19



1.2.1.1 Politeness principles
With the view of politeness as “a system of interpersonal relations designed
to facilitate interaction by minimizing the potential for conflict and confrontation
inherent in all human interchange”, Lakoff (in Green 1989:142) approached three
different rules that a speaker might follow in making polite actions.

Rule 1: Don't impose (Distance)
Rule 1states that we keep distance from others by not imposing. It means that
avoiding mitigating or asking permission or apologizing for making addressee, doing
anything which addressee does not want to do. In order to keep distance from others,
she points out that we tend to use formal expressions or use technical vocabulary to
exclude personal emotions. This rule is used in situations when participants are
greatly different in power and status, for example a student and the Dean or a factory
worker and the President. Thus, this rule takes effect when very formal politeness is
required. In Brown and Levinson's terms, Rule 1 would be equivalent to negative
politeness
Rule 2: Give options (Deference)
The second principle, deference is characterized by saying things hesitantly,
by not stating one's will clearly or by using euphemisms. These mean expressing
oneself in such a way that one‟s opinion or request can be ignored without being
contradicted rejected. It involves the status difference of the speaker and the hearer,
and the speaker yields to the power of the hearer by leaving the option of decision to
the hearer. This rule is appropriate in conversations between people who are not
different in status or power, but are not socially close, such as a businessman and a
client; i.e. when informal politeness is required. This strategy is also related to
negative face in Brown and Levinson's sense and involves indirectness.
Rule 3: Be friendly (Encourage Feelings of Camaraderie)
The third principle, camaraderie, on the other hand, emphasizes equality
between the speaker and the hearer, and it enhances closeness between them. By
using Brown and Levinson's term, this strategy enhances positive face of the speaker
and the hearer. In this principle, indirectness can be also employed when the speaker
20



and the hearer understand each other completely and there is no need to talk. Rule 3

is used when intimate politeness is required.
And another linguist, Leech (1983:16) lists the politeness principle in order to
“minimize the expression of impolite beliefs” with the aim of “explaining the
relationship between sense and force in human conversation”. It consists of six
maxims:
Maxim I: The Tact Maxim
Tact is the most important kind of politeness in English-speaking societies
and it correlates with the directive and commissive in Searl‟s categories of speech
acts. The Tact Maxim runs as follows: “Minimize the expression of beliefs which
imply cost to other; maximize the expression of beliefs which imply benefit to
other”. Being tactful means S gives an effort to increase benefit to H. Whether an
utterance is polite or not can be judged by putting it on a cost-benefit scale.

The implied cost to H can be reduced not only by changing the propositional
content of the utterance like in the above examples but also by using “minimizers”.
The minimizers help to limit the size of imposition on H and thus improve politeness.
This strategy has much in common with Lakoff‟s politeness rule “Don‟t impose”.
E.g.: Let me use your computer for a little while.
Hang on a second.
Just a minute.
Maxim II: The Generosity Maxim
The Generosity Maxim states: “Minimize benefit to self; maximize cost to
self”. (Leech 1983:133)
In comparison with the Tact Maxim, Generosity is a self-centered kind of
politeness, whereas Tact is other-centered. It appears that the Generosity Maxim is
the reverse of the Tact Maxim: when S means to minimize benefit to self, S also
means to minimize cost to other; when cost to self is maximized, benefit to other is
also maximized. Therefore, it is likely that both of these maxims will apply in the
same utterance. However, there are still cases when only one maxim is observed
21

without the observation of the other. For example, in a piece of advice like: “You can
get them for less than half the price at the market”, only the Tact Maxim applies: it is
meant to be beneficial to H but does not imply any cost to S.
Being generous is one kind of politeness; however, it should be applied
within certain limitation. Over applying this maxim may sound sarcastic and thus
lead to communication breakdown.
Maxim III: The Approbation Maxim
This maxim states: “Minimize dispraise of other, maximize praise of other”
(Leech 1983:134)
Obviously, saying pleasant things about others is preferable to saying
unpleasant things. E.g. paying someone a compliment like: “You have a stylish shirt”
is very polite, while saying “You have a dirty shirt” is not. In everyday conversation,
however, sometimes we cannot praise others for sake of sincerity and honesty. In
order to be polite in such cases, we can choose either saying nothing or using indirect
or evasive expressions. We may say: “His shirt is not very clean” instead of “His
shirt is dirty”.
Another thing that S needs to bear in mind when applying this maxim is that
“other” may be H or H‟s dear things or people. Therefore, it is not polite to ask: “Are
those noisy children yours?” or “Did you cook this smelly dish?”
Maxim IV: The Modesty Maxim
This maxim states: “Minimize praise of self; maximize dispraise of self”
(Leech 1983:136)
This maxim explains why saying “I was very kind to them” is considered to
be less polite than saying: “I didn‟t give them enough support”. However, the
situation does not stay the same in all cultures. The application of the Modesty
Maxim varies greatly according to societies and cultures. In English speaking
cultures, the recipient of a compliment is supposed to show his politeness by saying

thank you, whereas in Oriental cultures like Vietnamese, it is best to deny the praise.
E.g. A: You have a very nice shirt.
22



B: Thank you. (preferred in English-speaking cultures)
A: You have a very nice shirt.
B: Oh, it‟s very plain. (preferred in Vietnamese culture)
Maxim V: The Agreement Maxim
Jenny Thomas restates this maxim of Leech as follow: “Minimize the
expression of disagreement between self and other; maximize the expression of
agreement between self and other”.
According to this maxim, when showing agreement to H, S tends to use a
direct or even exaggerating way. On the contrary, disagreement is usually expressed
indirectly or partially. In the following examples, (2) is more polite than (1) but less
polite than (3):
E.g. 1) A: His lecture was very good, wasn‟t it?
B: No, I think it was unintelligible.
2) A: The film was interesting, wasn‟t it?
B: Well, but the end is not really satisfactory.
3) A: Isn‟t it a marvelous car?
B: Yes, it is.
Maxim VI: The Sympathy Maxim
This maxim states that being polite means minimizing antipathy between self
and other along with maximizing sympathy between self and other. Thus, it is polite
to say a condolence like: “I‟m sorry to hear that your cat died” or a congratulation
like: “I‟m glad to hear that you‟ve passed your driving test”.
On the other hand, not all the maxims are equally important. Maxim I appears
to be a more powerful constraint on conversations than Maxim II, and Maxim III is

of more significance than IV. Thus, politeness attaches more importance on other
than on self. Likewise, politeness towards the addressee is generally more important
than politeness towards a third party.
23



Leech also notices that these maxims should be observed “up to a certain
point” rather than as absolute rules, and over applying any maxim would lead to the
feeling that S is being insincere or tedious.
In six maxims, Leech considers that the “tact maxim” is the most important in
politeness in English speaking society.
1.2.1.2 The face-management view on politeness
1.2.1.2.1 Face
Face is the central concept in Brown &Levinson‟s theory of politeness.
According to Brown and Levinson (1978: 66) “Face” is “something that is
emotionally invested, and that can be lost, maintained, or enhanced and must be
constantly attended to in interaction”. Since face refers to the respect that an
individual has for him or herself, and maintaining that "self-esteem" in public or in
private situations as Yule (1996) defined, “face means the public self-image of a
person. It refers to that emotional and social sense of self that every one has and
expects every one else to recognize”. If someone‟s face is threatened, that person can
be expected to defend his own face, and in doing this, he‟ll threaten the face of the
others. Therefore, it is best to maintain each other‟s face.
Face consists of two related aspects: positive and negative face. A person‟s
positive face, according to Yule (1996), “is the need to be accepted, even liked, by
others, to be treated as a member of the same group, and to know that his or her
wants are shared by others”; and “negative face is the need to be independent, to
have freedom of action, and not to be imposed on by others”. In other words, an
individual‟s positive face want is the desire to be liked, approved of, respected and

appreciated by others, the desire that his wants be desirable to at least some others.
An individual‟s negative face want, on the other hand, is the desire not to be impeded
or put upon, to have freedom to act as he chooses, to be treated as a “competent adult
member” of society. While positive and negative face wants exist in every individual
and are presented in most societies, different cultures tend to place different
emphasis on one of the two aspects of face.
Brown and Levinson contend that any speech act has the potential of
threatening either the face of the speaker or that of the hearer. They believe that
24



conversation is much more concerned with observing politeness expectations
designed to ensure the “redress of face than with the exchange of information.” They
have proposed a direct relationship between social distance and politeness in such a
way as to indicate that an increase in social distance will bring about an increase in
the degree of politeness and vice versa. The notion of politeness finds meaning when
it is studied in the context of face-threatening acts (or FTA‟s) that include positive
and negative ones. In other words, some FTA‟s threaten negative face and some
others threaten positive face. The former includes directives such as commands,
requests, advice, invitations, etc. The latter, on the other hand, includes criticisms,
insults, disagreements, and corrections.
1.2.1.2.2. Face threatening acts
As discussed in the previous section, participants of an interaction must attend
to each other‟s face. If a speaker says something that represents a threat to another
individual‟s expectation regarding self-image, he is considered as having performed a
face threatening act (FTA). FTAs are acts that are likely to damage or threaten
others‟ face. An illocutionary act may potentially threat H‟s negative face if it
indicates that S does not intend to avoid impeding H‟s freedom of action (e.g. an
order, a request), or threat H‟s positive face if it indicates that S does not care about

H‟s feelings, wants, hopes, etc. (e.g. a disapproval, a criticism, an accusation). Not
only may an illocutionary act threat H‟s face, but it may also have the potential of
damaging S‟s own face. For example, an expression of thanks implies that S accepts
a debt to H, and thus threats S‟s negative face, an apology indicates that S regrets
doing a prior FTA so it damages S‟s positive face.
As usual, we tend to save one another‟s face when speaking. We can attend to
people‟s positive or negative face wants. Depending on whose face and what kind of
face is threatened in an interaction, we can employ appropriate strategies to perform
an FTA. Those strategies are termed as politeness strategies.
1.2.1.2.3 Politeness strategies
The theory assumes that most speech acts, for example requests, offers and
compliments, inherently threaten either the hearer‟s or the speaker‟s face-wants, and
that politeness is involved in redressing those face threatening acts (FTA). On the
basis of these assumptions, three main strategies for performing speech acts are
distinguished: positive politeness, negative politeness and off-record politeness.
25



Positive politeness aims at supporting or enhancing the addressee‟s positive face,
whereas negative politeness aims at softening the encroachment on the addressee‟s
freedom of action or freedom from imposition. The third strategy, off-record
politeness, means flouting one of the Gricean (1975) maxims on the assumption that
the addressee is able to infer the intended meaning. According to Brown and
Levinson, politeness is divided into five strategies to minimize risk of costing face
corresponding to the degree of face-threatening.
- Strategy 1: Bald on record
- Strategy 2: Positive politeness
- Strategy 3: Negative politeness
- Strategy 4: Off record (implicating)

- Strategy 5: Do not do the face threatening acts (FTA)
Greater risk (1) without redressive action, badly
On record (2) Positive
Do the FTA With redressive
(4)Off record (3)
Negative
(5) Do not do the FTA
Lesser risk

Brown and Levinson (1987: 131, 102) also divide politeness into negative
and positive strategies in which 10 strategies for negative and 15 for positive. All of
twenty five strategies are presented in the following table:





Negative
politeness
strategies
1. Be conventionally indirect.
Could you please pass the salt?
2. Question, hedge.
I don‟t suppose you could pass the salt.
3. Be pessimistic.
You don‟t have any envelopes, do
you?
4. Minimize the imposition.
I just dropped by for a second to ask…
5. Give deference.

We very much look forward to your
dining with us.
26



6. Apologize.
I‟m sorry to bother you, but…
7. Impersonalize S and H.
It appears that we may have to…
8. State the FTA as a general
rule.
Passengers will refrain from…
9. Nominalize.
I‟m surprised at your failure to reply.
10. Go on record as incurring
debt or as not indebting H.
I‟d be eternally grateful if you could…






Positive
politeness
strategies
1. Notice, attend to H (interest,
wants, needs, approval).
You must be hungry…

2. Use in-group identity
markers.
Tu t‟es bien amuse a la plage? [Did
you have a good time at the beach?]
3. Seek agreement
Yes, the weather is wonderful today,
isn‟t it?
4. Presuppose or assert
common ground.
Help me with this bag, lave?
5. Joke.
How about lending me a few fivers?
6. Offer, promise.
I‟ll drop by sometime next week
7. Be optimistic.
I‟m sure you won‟t mind if I…
8. Include both S and H in the
activity.
Let‟s have a drink next week.
9. Give or ask for reasons.
Why not go to the seashore?
10. Give gifts (sympathy) to H.
I‟m really sorry to hear about your cat.
11. Exaggerate
Good old Jim. Just the man I wanted to
see….
12. Intensifying interest to H
You‟ll never guess….
13. Avoid disagreement.
Well, in a way, I suppose you‟re sort

of right