politeness strategies in requests in the movie series harry potter = chiến lược lịch sự trong lời thỉnh cầu trong các tập phim harry potter

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



LƯƠNG THANH HỒNG



POLITENESS STRATEGIES IN REQUESTS IN
THE MOVIE SERIES “HARRY POTTER”

(Chiến lược Lịch sự trong Lời Thỉnh cầu trong
các tập phim “Harry Potter”)

MINOR M.A. THESIS

Field: English Linguistics
Code: 60.22.15



Hanoi – 2012


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

LƯƠNG THANH HỒNG





POLITENESS STRATEGIES IN REQUESTS IN
THE MOVIE SERIES “HARRY POTTER”


(Chiến lược Lịch sự trong Lời Thỉnh cầu trong
các tập phim “Harry Potter”)


MINOR M.A. THESIS


Field: English Linguistics
Code: 60.22.15
Supervisor: Assoc.Prof.Dr. Nguyê
̃
n Văn Đô
̣

Hanoi – 2012
iv

TABLE OF CONTENTS
Page
Declaration ……………………………………………………………………………
i
Acknowledgements …………………………………………………………………
ii
Abstract ……………………………………………………………………………….
iii
Abbreviations …………………………………………………………………………
vi
PART 1: INTRODUCTION

1. Rationale …………………………………………………………………………
1
2. Aims of the study …………………………………………………………………
2
3. Research questions of the study ……………………………………………………
2
4. Scope of the study ………………………………………………………………….
2
5. Overview of the movie ……………………………………………………………
2

6. Methods of the study ……………………………………………………………….
3
7. Design of the study ………………………………………………………………
3
PART 2: DEVELOPMENT

CHAPTER 1: THEORETICAL BACKGROUND

1.1. Speech Acts …………………………………………………………………
5
1.1.1. Speech act theory ……………………………………………………………
5
1.1.2. Speech act of requesting ……………………………………………………
7
1.2. Politeness ……………………………………………………………………
8
1.2.1. Definition of politeness …………………………………………
8
1.2.2. Social factors affecting politeness strategies ……………………
13
1.2.3. Politeness and indirectness ……………………………………………………
14
1.2.4. Politeness strategies …………………………………………………………
15
1.2.4.1. Positive politeness strategies ………………………………………………
16
1.2.4.2. Negative politeness strategies ……………………………………………….
16
1.3. Previous studies on request and politeness strategies ……………………………
16

1.4. Summary …………………………………………………………………………
18


v

CHAPTER 2: POLITENESS STRATEGIES IN REQUESTS IN THE MOVIE
SERIES “HARRY POTTER”
2.1. Politeness strategies in requests in the movie series “Harry Potter” ……………
19
2.2. The frequency of Politeness strategies in Requests in the movie series “Harry
Potter” ………………………………………………………………………………
19
2.2.1. Sampling process ………………………………………………………………
19
2.2.2. The frequency of politeness strategies in requests ……………………………
19
2.2.2.1. Positive politeness strategies …………………………………………………
20
2.2.2.2. Negative politeness strategies ………………………………………………
28
2.3. Politeness strategies in requests in the movie series Harry Potter and S-H
relationship

2.3.1. Positive politeness strategies and S- H relationships ……………
35
2.3.2. Negative politeness strategies and S- H relationships …………………………
37
2.4. Summary …………………………………………………………………………
39

PART 3: CONCLUSION

3.1. Recapitulation ………………………………………………………………
41
3.2. Implications for teaching politeness strategies in requests ………………………
42
3.3. Limitations of the study …………………………………………………………
42
3.4. Suggestions for further research ………………………………………………
43
REFERENCES











vi

ABBREVIATIONS

FTA:
Face Threatening Act
H:
Hearer/ Addressee

S:
Speaker/ Addresser
S.A:
Speech Acts
D:
Distance
P:
Power
R:
Rank of Imposition
PPS:
Positive Politeness Strategy
NPS:
Negative Politeness Strategy
E.g.:
For example
M.A.:
Master of Arts
1


PART 1: INTRODUCTION
1. Rationale
As it can be seen clearly, politeness plays an of great importance role in human daily
communication. It has a great influence in phenomena, rules and structures of languages.
Therefore, the effectiveness of communication is affected considerably. During the
development of civilized society, human beings have been founding standards and values
describing appropriate behaviors as well as communicative strategies and language structures
which are considered being polite in specific situations and specific cultures. There are a
number of studies on politeness issue because of its significance in communication. However,

each researcher has a different point of view. For example, Lakoff and Leech study politeness
under communicative strategies, Brown and Levinson consider politeness as behaviors saving
face. Although politeness seems to be quite familiar and very old, in fact it still develops non-
stop and actually offers me many interests, which inspires me to carry out a research on such
issue. However, to achieve politeness in communication, it is necessary to give out suitable
politeness strategies for each certain context. Thus, the study on politeness as well as
politeness strategies is of great importance and essential to enhance the effectiveness of our
daily communication.
Moreover, what are the other reasons why I would like to investigate politeness
strategies in requests in the movie series Harry Potter? Firstly, according to many scholars not
only is requesting one of the most popular activities in human daily communication but also is
the most threatening act to the human face. Thus, choosing appropriate politeness strategies
when making requests need to be taken into due consideration, which actually brings me good
opportunities to do research on politeness strategies often used in daily requests. Secondly, I
choose the requests in the movie series Harry Potter as the data for my study because watching
movies is one of my biggest hobbies and offers me much interest. Especially, the movie series
recently have been the best ones produced by Warner Bros - a very famous movie producer in
the United States, so I believe that the reliability of the content quality is much relevant to my
study.
2


Finally, I would expect the result of my research: Politeness Strategies in Requests in
the Movie Series “Harry Potter” will have a great meaning to teaching and learning as well as
using politeness strategies in requests appropriately and effectively. In addition, it will be
much easier for people to choose and employ politeness strategies, which actually offers
effectiveness in daily communication.
2. Aims of the study
1. To study the performance of positive and negative politeness strategies in the requests
by the characters in the three episodes of the movie Harry Potter.

2. To study the effects of S-H relationship on the choices of politeness strategies in the
requests of the characters in the three episodes of the movie Harry Potter.
3. Research questions
1. What are the positive and negative politeness strategies in the requests by the
characters in the three episodes of the movie Harry Potter?
2. How does S-H relationship affect the choices of positive and negative politeness
strategies in making requests of the characters in the three episodes of the movie Harry
Potter?
4. Scope of the study
Due to the time and limitation of a minor thesis, it is impossible for me to investigate
politeness strategies in requests in all their aspects. So, I would like to focus on verbal
communication, but other important factors such as non-linguistic factors (facial expression,
gestures, eye contact, etc.), paralinguistic factors such as intonation, pause, speed of speech,
etc. are not taken into consideration in my study. Moreover, positive and negative politeness
strategies based on the theoretical framework of Brown and Levinson (1987) are under the
investigation of all the requests in three episodes: Harry Potter and the Prisoner of Azkaban,
Harry Potter and the Goblet of Fire, and Harry Potter and the Half- Blood Prince of the
movie Harry Potter.
5. Overview of the movie
The Harry Potter movie series are British- American one based on the Harry Potter
novels by the British author J.K. Rowling. The series are distributed by Warner Bros and
3


consist of eight episodes beginning with Harry Potter and the Philosopher‟s Stone (2001) and
culminating with Harry Potter and the Deathly Hallows- Part 2 (2011). They are the highest
movie series of all- time in inflation unadjusted dollars, with $7.7 billion in worldwide
receipts. The movie series are also a critical success and noted by audiences for growing
visually darker and more mature as each episode was released.
The movie series revolve around Harry Potter, an orphan who discovers that he is a

wizard. Wizard ability is inborn, but children are sent to wizarding school to learn the magical
skills necessary to succeed in the wizarding world. Harry is invited to attend the boarding
school called Hogwarts School of Witchcraft and Wizardry. Each movie episode chronicles
one year in Harry's life, and most of the events take place at Hogwarts. As he struggles
through adolescence, Harry learns to overcome many magical, social and emotional hurdles.
6. Methods of the study
This study employs the Quantitative method which focuses much more 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 series of number
presented in tables and charts.
7. Design of the study
The thesis consists of three main parts:
PART 1: INTRODUCTION
This part of the thesis presents the rationale, aims, research questions, scope, method
and design of the study.
PART 2: DEVELOPMENT
This is the nuclear part of the thesis containing two chapters:
Chapter 1: Theoretical Background
This chapter establishes an overview of the theories on Speech Acts, Speech act of
Request and Politeness theory which are the basis for the following analysis in the next
chapter.
Chapter 2: Politeness strategies in requests in the series of movies Harry Potter
4


This chapter studies how the characters in the movie series use the politeness strategies
in their requests and how S-H relationship affects their choices of politeness strategies when
making requests.
PART 3: CONCLUSION
In this part, the author recapitulates the study, offers implication, limitations and

suggestions for further research.























5


PART 2: DEVELOPMENT
CHAPTER 1: THEORETICAL BACKGROUND
1.1. Speech Acts

1.1.1. Speech act theory
Many actions are carried out by using languages during human communication.
Although they are expressed variously, they are all called speech acts. Speech act is one of the
most issues that interests researchers most. It has been investigated seriously by different
theorists such as Austin (1962), Grice (1957, 1975), Hymes (1964), Searle (1969), Levinson
(1983), Brown and Yule (1983), Yule (1996), etc. so that human communication can be
carried out in the most effective way.
 Austin’s theory
Speech act theory is originally developed by Austin in his famous book entitled “How
to do things with words”. He presented a new picture of analyzing meaning in relationship
among linguistics conventions correlated with words/ sentences, the situation where the
speaker actually says something to the hearer, and associated intentions of the speaker.
Austin (1962) defines speech acts as the actions performed in saying something.
Actions performed through utterance production are called speech acts such as requesting,
apologizing, complaining, promising, etc. Speech acts consist of three related acts, namely
locutionary act, illocutionary act and perlocutionary act.
 Locutionary act, a basic act of producing a meaningful linguistic expression,
includes phonetic acts, phatic acts and rhetic acts. Phonetic acts are acts of
pronouncing sound, phatic acts are acts of uttering words or sentences in
accordance with the phonological and syntactic rules of the language to which
they belong, and rhetic acts are one of uttering a sentence with sense and more
or less definite reference.
 Illocutionary act is an act performed via the communicative force of an
utterance such as requesting, advising, promising, inviting, etc.
6


 Perlocutionary act is “what we bring about or achieve by saying something
such as convincing, persuading, deterring and even, say, surprising or
misleading”. (1962: 109)

Austin also focuses on illocutionary acts where we might find the force of the
statement and demonstrate its performative nature. He classified illocutionary acts into 5
categories based on performative verbs:
 Verdictives are typified by the giving of verdict by a jury, arbitrator or umpire
(e.g. grade, estimate, diagnose).
 Exercitives are the exercising of power, rights or influence (e.g. appoint, order,
warn).
 Commissives refer to the amusing of obligation or giving of an undertaking
(e.g. promise, undertake).
 Behabitives relate to attitudes and social behaviors (e.g. apologize,
compliment, congratulate).
 Expositives address the clarifying of reasons, arguments or expressing
viewpoints (e.g. assume, concede, suggest).
 Searle’s theory
According to Searle (1969:24), language is a part of theory of action and speech acts
such as promising, threatening, requesting, etc. are often performed during human
communication. There are three different types of speech acts:
 Utterance acts consist of units of expression such as words and sentences.
 Propositional acts are those matters having to do with referring and predicting.
 Illocutionary acts have to do with the intents of speakers such as requesting,
promising, commanding, etc.
He also classified illocutionary acts into five clear and useful categories:
 Representatives: speaker is committed to the truth of a proposition: affirm,
conclude, believe, deny, report.
 Directives: speaker tries to get the hearer to do something: ask, command,
request, insist.
7


 Commissives: speaker is committed to a course of action: guarantee, pledge,

promise, swear, vow.
 Expressives: speaker expresses an attitude about a state of affairs: apologize,
congratulate, regret, thank, welcome.
 Declarations: speaker alters the external status or condition of an object or
situation, solely by making the utterance: I announce you husband and wife.
1. 1.2. The Speech act of Requesting
According to Searle (1969: 66), a request is defined as “a directive speech act which
counts as an attempt to get H (the hearer) to do an act which S (the speaker) wants H to do,
and which S believes that H is able to do; and which it is not obvious that H will do in the
normal course of events or of H‟s own accord.” From this point, it is very clear that the speech
act of request consists of three basic elements: the speaker (S), the hearer (H) and the Act
itself. Thus, in order to make a successful request, it is believed that the hearer is able and
willing to do the act intended by the speaker.
Searle (1975: 71) continued to develop Austin‟s notion of felicity condition that holds
for a successful speech act by proposing the conditions for requesting as follows:
 Preparatory condition: H is able to perform A.
 Sincerity condition: S wants H to do A.
 Propositional condition: S predicates a future act A of H.
 Essential condition: count as an attempt by S to get H to do A.
In the view of Blum- Kulka et.al (1989), the realization of request can be seen from
four aspects:
 Hearer dominance: Can you open the door?
 Speaker dominance: Do you think I could borrow your car?
 Speaker and Hearer dominance: Could we talk now?
 Impersonal or the use of unspecific agent such as people, anyone, they, etc.: Can
anyone help me?
Although a request is realized in any perspectives, it possesses similar basic
characteristics. Firstly, it gives us an idea about the expectations of the S and the H with
8

regard to verbal or non-verbal action (Blum-Kulka et. al 1989: 11). Secondly, like other
speech acts such as refusal, apology, requesting is inherently face-threatening in that it allows
the Hs to interpret it as an intrusive act towards their freedom of action (Brown and Levinson
1978). Thirdly, it indicates the power of the interlocutors: the superior tends to produce more
direct requests while the inferior tends to produce more indirect requests. Finally, Brown and
Levinson 1987 also pointed out that the conventionalized realizations of requests, as well as its
frequency, are vivid indicators of whether a society is a positively or negatively oriented
society. “A positive society” is a society in which speakers‟ need for approval and belonging
(in groupness) are emphasized whereas showing of deference and keeping distance are
emphasized in “negatively-oriented society”.
1.2. Issues of Politeness
1.2.1. Definition of Politeness
Politeness is one of the most noticeable issues in the research of intercultural
communication and cross-cultural communication of human beings. According to the
foreword of Gumperz (cited in Brown and Levinson, 1987: xiii), “politeness is basic to the
production of social order, and a precondition of human cooperation, so that any theory
which provides an understanding of this phenomenon at the same time goes to the foundations
of human social life.”
During the vast development of linguistics, many researchers have been interested in
the field of politeness with various points of view and from different aspects. However,
according to Nguyen Quang (2004: 10), three main important approaches to politeness are
mentioned:
 Set the ideal standard for polite acts to refer such as Grice
 Propose the principles of politeness in communication in the form of do‟s and
don‟ts like Lakoff, Leech
 Specify the necessary strategies to encounter Face Threatening Acts (FTAs) in
communication as in Brown and Levinson, 1987
Thus, what is the definition of politeness? There is a variety of different points of view.
Yule (1996: 60) mentioned concept of politeness together with the concept of face:

9


“Politeness, is in an interaction, can be defined as the means employed to show awareness of
another person‟s face.” Moreover, politeness is recognized as “the idea of polite social
behavior, or etiquette, within a culture.” Specifically, politeness is “a number of different
general principles for being polite, in social interaction within a particular culture.”
Lakoff (1975:64), who took an attention on politeness from the very beginning,
considered politeness as consisting of forms of behaving which have been “developed in
societies in order to reduce friction in personal interaction”. Politeness is defined as “a
system of interpersonal relations designed to facilitate interaction by minimizing the potential
for conflict and confrontation inherent in all human interchange”. She also pointed out three
different rules that a speaker should follow to be polite:
Rule 1: Do not impose
It is the most formal politeness rule. It is appropriately employed when there is
difference in power and status between the participants such as between a student and a dean,
an employee and a boss. A speaker who is considered polite regarding this rule will avoid, or
ask permission or apologize for making the addressee do anything which he does not want to
do.
Rule 2: Offer options
It is a more informal politeness rule and appropriate to situations in which the
interlocutors have quite equal status and power, but are not socially close such as a
businessman and a client. Offering options means expressing oneself in such way that one‟s
opinion or request can be ignored without being contracted or rejected.
Rule 3: Encourage feelings of camaraderie
The participants are intimate or close friends.
Leech (1983) formulates a more comprehension framework in comparison with
Lakoff‟s rules with a number of maxims which stand in the same relationship to the Politeness
principle by Grice (1967) basing on the concepts of “cost” and “benefit”.
 Tact maxim: “minimize the expression of beliefs which imply cost to other;

maximize the expression of beliefs which imply benefit to other”
10


 Generosity maxim: “minimize the expression of benefit to self; maximize the
expression of cost to self”.
 Approbation maxim: “minimize the expression of beliefs which express dispraise
of other; maximize the expression of beliefs which express approval of other”.
 Modesty maxim: “minimize the expression of praise of self; maximize the
expression of dispraise of self”.
 Agreement maxim: “minimize the expression of disagreement between self and
other; maximize the expression of agreement between self and other”.
 Sympathy maxim: “minimize antipathy between self and other; maximize
sympathy between self and other”.
Leech considers the Tact maxim as the most important kind of politeness in the
English-speaking societies. He believes that his model could be applied universally across
cultures. But in reality, it might be best applied to English culture where social distance is
given higher value, especially in formal situations. It shows that it is inappropriate for all
situations and societies where social intimacy is highly valued.
The most influential theory of politeness was originated by Brown and Levinson (1978
and revised in 1987). The significant point of their theory of politeness is the concept of
“face”. The term “face” in the sense of “reputation”, or “good name” was developed from
Goffman‟s concept of “face” (1955) to explain the use of politeness phenomena.
According to Brown and Levinson (1987:66), face refers to the public self-image that
every member (of a society) wants to claim for himself consisting of two related aspects:
Negative face: the basic claim to territories, personal preserves, rights to non-
distraction, i.e. to freedom of action and freedom from imposition.
Positive face: the positive consistent self-image or personality (crucially including the
desire that this self-image be appreciated).
In other words, negative face is the need to be independent and positive face is the

need to be connected.
Moreover, 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
11


cooperate (and assume each other‟s cooperation) 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‟s being maintained, and since people can be expected to defend
their face if threatened, and in defending their own to threaten others‟ faces, it is in general in
every participant‟s best interest to maintain each other‟s face. (Brown and Levinson, 1987)
Concerned with “positive face” and “negative face”, the concepts of positive and
negative politeness are developed.
According to Yule (1996:69), negative politeness is a face saving act which oriented to
the person‟s negative face will tend to show deference, emphasize the importance of the
other‟s time or concerns, and even include an apology for the imposition or interruption.
Brown and Levinson state that “negative politeness is redressive action address to the
addressee‟s negative face: his want to have his freedom of action unhindered and his attention
unimpeded” (Brown and Levinson, 1987: 129). Thus, negative politeness focuses on
individualism and avoids intruding others‟ privacy. It is also the most preferred in English
culture.
Unlike negative politeness, positive politeness a face saving act which is concerned
with the person‟s positive face will tend to show solidarity, emphasize that both Ss and Hs
want the same thing, and that they have a common goal (Yule, 1996:69).
According to Brown and Levinson (1987:101), positive politeness is redress directed to
the addressee‟s positive face, his perennial desire that his wants should be thought of as
desirable.
They also mentioned four kinds of Face Threatening Acts (FTAs) so that people could
respect others‟ face, feelings and avoid FTAs.
1. Acts threatening to the hearer‟s negative face by indicating that the speaker does

not intend to avoid impeding the hearer‟s freedom of action. E.g.: ordering,
suggesting, threatening, requesting, promising, etc.
2. Acts threatening to the hearer‟s positive face by indicating that the speaker does
not care about the addressee‟s feelings and wants. E.g.: disapproving, contempting,
complaining, criticizing, disagreeing.
12


3. Acts threatening to the speaker‟s negative face. E.g. accepting an offer, excusing,
promising unwillingly
4. Acts threatening to the speaker‟s positive face. E.g.: apologizing, confessing.

Brown and Levinson also point out five macrostrategies that speakers can seek to
avoid these above Face Threatening Acts.

Circumstance determining choice of strategy
In the context of the mutual vulnerability of face, the speaker has two choices: he may
seek to avoid the FTA (Don‟t do the FTA) or decide to Do the FTA.
The speaker goes on record in doing an act A, if his statement is directly addressed to
the hearer. Doing an act on record consists of doing it:
- without redressive (baldly) - the most clear, unobsecure possible way. For example:
in requesting, we say “Do it!”
- or with redressive action - giving “Face” to the hearer to prevent from the face
damage of the FTA with some alternations and additions. There are two forms of action which
rely on which aspect of face (positive or negative) emphasized.
On the other hand, the speaker goes off in doing an act of A, if there is “more than one
unambiguous attributable intention” or the speaker avoids imposition on the hearer. Speaker is
usually recommended to use the strategy marked by the employ of metaphor, irony, rhetorical
questions, understatements, tautologies and all kinds of hints.
13

1.2.2. Social factors affecting politeness strategies
Brown and Levinson (1987:15) propose that three sociological factors are crucial in
determining the level of politeness which a speaker (S) will use to an addressee (H); they are
relative power (P) of H over S, the social distance (D) between S and H, and the ranking of the
imposition (R) involving in doing the face- threatening act (FTA).
P which 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 expense 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 economy distribution and physical force) and
metaphysical control (over the actions of others, by virtue of metaphysical forces subscribed to
by those others).
D is a symmetric social dimension of similarity/difference within which S and H stand
for the purposes of this act. In some situations, D 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 representative).
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.
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 wants). In general, there are probably two such scales
or ranks that are identifiable for negative-face FTAs: a ranking of impositions in proportion to
the expenditure of services (including the time provision) and good (including non-material
goods such as information, regard expression and other face payments). As for positive-face
FTA, the ranking of imposition embraces an assessment of the amount of “pain” given to H‟s
face, based on the differences between H‟s desired self-image and that presented in FTA.
Cultural ranking of facets of positive face (like success, niceness, beauty, etc.) can be reranked
in specific circumstances, so do the negative face rankings. Besides, that there are also

14


personal rankings can be explained why some people object to certain kinds of FTAs and
some do not.
As it can be seen obviously, all three dimensions P, D, and R have a great contribution
to the seriousness of the FTA which will determine the appropriate type of strategy to be used.
1.2.3. Politeness and Indirectness
The notions of indirectness and politeness play an important role in the negotiation of
face during the realization of speech acts. In fact, there are many studies on the relationship
between politeness and indirectness such as Leech (1983), Brown and Levinson (1987), Blum-
Kulka (1987), LoCastro (2003).
Leech (1983) states that “indirect illocutions tend to be more polite because they
increase the degree of optionality and because the more indirect an illocution is, the more
diminished and tentative its force tends to be.” It means that the degree of politeness depends
on the frequency of using more indirect kind of illocution and relates closely to that of
optionality speaker gives to the hearers.
Brown and Levinson show that there is a close relationship between the use of indirect
speech acts and politeness. The degree of indirectness relates to the degree of face threatening.
Moreover, negative politeness is more polite than positive politeness because the speaker puts
more effort in face- preserving work of the hearer in the use of more indirect speech acts.
LoCastro (2003) points out the link between indirectness and politeness further
supported by Searle‟s observation that “politeness is the most prominent motivation for
indirectness in requests, and certain forms tend to become the conventionally polite ways of
making indirect requests” (cited in Dung, 2008).
However, Blum- Kulka (1987) has a different view on the relationship between
politeness and indirectness when studying perception of politeness and indirectness in requests
in Hebrew and English. She shows that indirectness does not necessarily imply politeness. She
also argues that too much indirectness may be perceived as lack of clarity which is a marker of
impoliteness.

15


Although there may be different views on the relationship between politeness and
indirectness in different cultures, in this study I believe there exists a positive correlation
between politeness and indirectness.
1.2.4. Politeness strategies
Brown and Levinson propose 15 strategies for achieving positive politeness and 10 for
negative strategies:
1.2.4.1. Positive Politeness Strategies






Positive
Politeness
Strategies
1. Notice, attend to H
You must be hungry, it‟s a long time since
breakfast. How about some lunch?
2. Exaggerate
What a fantastic garden you have!
3. Intensify interest to H
There were a million people in the Co-op
tonight.
4. Use in-group identity markers
Come here, honey.
5. Seek agreement

A: John went to London this weekend!
B: To London!
6. Avoid disagreement
A: Can you hear me?
B: Barely.
7. Presuppose, assert common
ground
I had a really hard time learning to drive,
didn‟t I?
8. Joke
Ok if I tackle those cookies now?
9. Assert or presuppose people‟s
knowledge and concern for H‟s
wants
I know you can‟t bear parties, but this one
will really be good- do come!
10. Offer, promise
I‟ll drop by sometime next week.
11. Be optimistic
Look, I‟m sure you won‟t mind if I borrow
your typewriter.
12. Include both S and H in the
activity
Let‟s have a cookie, then.
13. Give reasons
Why don‟t I help you with that suitcase?
14. Assume or assert reciprocity
I‟ll do X for you if you do Y for me.
15. Give gifts
I‟m really sorry to hear about that.

16


1.2.4.2. Negative Politeness Strategies




Negative
Politeness
Strategies
1. Be conventionally indirect
Can you please pass the salt?
2. Question, hedge
I suppose that Harry is coming.
3. Be pessimistic
Perhaps you‟d care to help me.
4. Minimize the imposition
I just want to ask you if I can borrow a little
paper.
5. Give deference
Thank you, sir.
6. Apologize
I‟m sorry to bother you, but …
7. Impersonalize S and H
I ask you to do this for me.
8. State FTA as a general rule
We don‟t sit on tables, we sit on chairs,
Johnny.

9. Nominalize
I‟m surprised at your failure to reply.
10. Go on record as incurring a debt
or off record as indebting H
I‟ll never be able to repay you if you…

(Brown and Levinson, 1987 pp. 101-135)
1.3. Previous studies on request and politeness strategy
According to Chieko Takezawa in her M.A. thesis at the University of British
Columbia, Vancouver, Canada “Politeness and the speech act of Requesting in Japanese as a
second language” she studied how native Japanese speakers and native English speaking
learners of Japanese approached and attained their requests goals while maintaining the face of
both requester and requestee. She used oral role play to collect data. The results showed that
there was not much difference in the use of honorific language between the Japanese and
learners of Japanese. But different linguistic devices were used for sentence endings,
especially request speech act endings, between the native Japanese and the learners of
Japanese.
In the Analysis of Appropriateness in a speech act of request in L2 English by Naoko
Taguchi in Pragmatics 16:4 (2006), there were fifty-nine Japanese college students of English
at two different proficiency levels evaluated for ability to produce a speech act of request in a
spoken role play task. Learners‟ production was analyzed quantitatively by rating performance
on a six-point scale for overall appropriateness, as well as qualitatively by identifying the
17


directness levels of the linguistic expressions used to produce requests. Results revealed a
significant L2 proficiency influence on overall appropriateness, but only a marginal difference
in the types of linguistic expressions used between the two proficiency groups. Moreover,
grammatical and discourse control encodes in the rating scale seemed to have affected the
quality of speech acts.

Thảo (2010) also studied how politeness strategies manifested in requests in the novel
“The Thorn Birds” by following the theoretical framework of Brown and Levinson 1987 in
her minor M.A. thesis at University of Languages and International Studies, Vietnam National
University. The results show that characters in the novel use positive politeness strategies in
their requests at a little higher frequency than negative politeness and the variation of the
proportion between positive and negative politeness strategies depending on social
relationship.
Yến (2007) in her minor M.A. thesis at University of Languages and International
Studies, Vietnam National University carried out her study on finding the answers to two
research questions: “Do British males and females differ in using politeness strategies in
requesting?” and “Are female speakers more polite than male speakers?” by using a written
discourse completion task (DCT) consisting of 6 situations with 6 combinations of Power (P)
and Social Distance (D) designed to elicit the request speech act from 10 participants (5 males
and 5 females). The realization of cross- gender politeness request strategies were based on
politeness strategies by Brown and Levinson (1987) and the relationship between directness-
indirectness politeness in requesting. The data were analyzed according to the Blum- Kulka
et.al‟s framework (1989) on requests: alerters, head acts, internal and external modifications.
Her study results revealed that in general both male and female participants were oriented
towards politeness although women tended to be more polite than men in their requests.
Women were found not to be as direct as men. They used internal and external modifications
more often than men whereas men were found to show their solidarity and in- groupness
through their choice of endearment terms and informal attention getters.
According to Hòa (2010), she investigated politeness strategies in cross- cultural
communication with respect to conversations found in the coursebook Inside Out (Pre-
18


Intermediate). The data analysis was conducted mainly in the light of the politeness theories
by Brown & Levinson and Nguyen Quang. The results revealed that the frequency of positive
and negative politeness strategies depended largely on the relationships between the speaker

and the hearer. In addition, some suggestions were offered and sample exercises were given
for better and more effective teaching and learning of positive and negative politeness
strategies.
1.4. Summary
In this chapter we have reviewed the major issues of Speech Acts, Speech Act of
Requesting, Politeness, Politeness strategies by Brown and Levinson (1987) and some
previous studies on request and politeness strategies. Different languages and cultures have
different norms for the appropriate realization of speech acts, so language learners need
instructions in order to communicate appropriately in the target language. In the following
chapter, the author will present the findings and discussions about the frequency of politeness
strategies in requests by the characters in the movie Harry Potter and the effects of S-H
relationship on the choices of politeness strategies in requests. In the next part, the author aims
to find the answers to the research questions.













19


CHAPTER 2:

POLITNESS STRATEGIES IN REQUESTS IN THE
MOVIE SERIES “HARRY POTTER”
2.1. Politeness strategies in Requests in the movie series “Harry Potter”
This chapter investigates how the characters in the series of movies Harry Potter make
their requests politely by the frequency of using politeness strategies in their requests as well
as how S-H relation affects their choice of politeness strategies. Brown and Levinson
framework of politeness strategies is employed in this study with 15 positive politeness
strategies and 10 negative politeness strategies.
2.2. The frequency of politeness strategies in requests employed in the movie series
“Harry Potter”
2.2.1. Sampling process
The process of collecting data consists of three steps. Firstly, all the request utterances
in the conversations of the characters in three movies series Harry Potter and the Prisoner of
Azkaban, Harry Potter and the Goblet of Fire and Harry Potter and the Half- Blood Prince
are picked up and classified by the author through her careful movie watching with the useful
support of the English subtitles. 313 requests found in three episodes of the movie Harry
Potter belong to three categories of politeness strategies employed: positive, negative and
sometimes mixed politeness strategies. Secondly, all contexts with S-H relationships are
considered in order to see how S-H relationship affects the choice of politeness strategies in
requesting by the characters in the movies. Finally, all the statistics needed for the study are
calculated carefully and presented in the following tables as well as charts.
2.2.2. The frequency of politeness strategies in requests employed in the movie series
“Harry Potter”
Positive politeness
strategies
Negative politeness
strategies
Mixed politeness
strategies
Sum

%
Sum
%
Sum
%
105
33.55%
184
58.78
24
7.67
Table 1: The statistic of positive, negative and mixed politeness strategies
The statistics can be converted into Pie-chart 1 as follows:
20



33.55%
58.78%
7.67%
Positive politeness strategies Negative politness strategies Mixed politness strategies

Pie- chart 1: The frequency of positive, negative and mixed politeness strategies
It can be seen clearly from the chart, the frequency of negative politeness strategies is
quite 1.5 times higher than the frequency of positive and mixed politeness strategies. This
seems that the presumption of Brown and Levinson about the usage of politeness strategies is
quite appropriate in Western countries. It means that negative politeness strategies are
preferred much more than positive ones because Western culture attaches more importance on
individual territory. However, according to Nguyen Quang (2002), Vietnamese people in
particular and Oriental ones tend to be more in favor of positive politeness and familiar

interactions as they wish to show their concern to or for others, and thus, narrow the distance
between S and H.
2.2.2.1. Positive politeness strategies in requests in the movie series “Harry Potter”
Strategy 1: Notice, attend to H (his interest, wants, needs, goods)
This strategy is commonly used in communication in order to satisfy an aspect of
positive face. It is when you perform an action (which is often considered to be good), you
have something changed positively, or you possess a beautiful thing, etc. and you always try to
attract others‟ notice and comments.
In this study, characters seem not to prefer using this strategy in making requests with
just only 1.53%
E.g.: I gotta tell you something. Let me get it straight.
Malfoy, are you ok? Let‟s go.
(in Harry Potter and the Prisoner of Azkaban)
Strategy 2: Exaggerate