A study on english politeness strategies for gift offers with reference to the vietnamese equivalents

MINISTRY OF EDUCATION AND TRAINING
HANOI OPEN UNIVERSITY

M.A. THESIS

A STUDY ON ENGLISH POLITENESS STRATEGIES
FOR GIFT OFFERS WITH REFERENCE TO THE
VIETNAMESE EQUIVALENTS
(NGHIÊN CỨU VỀ CHIẾN LƯỢC LỊCH SỰ BẰNG TIẾNG ANH KHI ĐƯA
RA LỜI MỜI TẶNG QUÀ VỚI CÁC LIỆN HỆ TƯƠNG ĐƯƠNG TRONG
TIẾNG VIỆT)

TRẦN THỊ THU HƯỜNG

Hanoi, 2016


MINISTRY OF EDUCATION AND TRAINING
HANOI OPEN UNIVERSITY

M.A. THESIS

A STUDY ON ENGLISH POLITENESS STRATEGIES
FOR GIFT OFFERS WITH REFERENCE TO THE
VIETNAMESE EQUIVALENTS
(NGHIÊN CỨU VỀ CHIẾN LƯỢC LỊCH SỰ BẰNG TIẾNG ANH KHI ĐƯA
RA LỜI MỜI TẶNG QUÀ VỚI CÁC LIỆN HỆ TƯƠNG ĐƯƠNG TRONG
TIẾNG VIỆT)

TRAN THI THU HUONG

Field: English Language
Code: 60220201

Supervisor: Assoc.Prof.Vo Dai Quang, Ph.D

Hanoi, 2016


CERTIFICATE OF ORIGINALITY
I, the undersigned, hereby certify my authority of the study project report
entitled A STUDY ON ENGLISH POLITENESS STRATEGIES FOR GIFT
OFFERS WITH REFERENCE TO THE VIETNAMESE EQUIVALENTS
submitted in partial fulfillment of the requirements for the degree of Master in
English Language. Except where the reference is indicated, no other person’s
work has been used without due acknowledgement in the text of the thesis.
Hanoi, 2016

Tran Thi Thu Huong

Approved by
SUPERVISOR

(Signature and full name)
Date:……………………

i


ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS
This thesis could not have been completed without the help and support

from a number of people.
First and foremost, I would like to express my sincere gratitude to
Assoc.Prof.Vo Dai Quang, Ph.D, my supervisor, who has patiently and
constantly supported me through the stages of the study, and whose stimulating
ideas, expertise, and suggestions have inspired me greatly through my growth as
an academic researcher.
A special word of thanks goes to all my lecturers and students in Hanoi
Technology and Business University and English teachers in Edu Future Centre
and Language Link Centre and their friends, without whose support and
encouragement it would never have been possible for me to have this thesis
accomplished.
Last but not least, I am greatly indebted to my family, my friends for the
sacrifice they have devoted to the fulfillment of this academic work.

ii


ASTRACTS
The present thesis has been carried out on the background of the
achievement and deficiencies in the existing studies on English politeness
strategies for gift offers with reference to the Vietnamese equivalents. The study
aims at investigating the similarities and differences in using politeness
strategies for gift offers between English and Vietnamese.
Besides, their survey responses are carefully analyzed to build a frame, a
common set of strategies in the field.
The conclusion is drawn from data analysis and findings are presented
and compared in a brief and concise way. Some common giving gift
offers patterns in both Vietnamese and English cultures from the data are
also presented and illustrated with the hope of partially helping avoid
misunderstanding in communication.

Moreover, investigating the politeness strategies of gift offers and finding
out the similarities and differences in two languages can help the Vietnamese
learners overcome the difficulties which caused the barrier between two cultures
when they are communicating. It also helps to enhance and improve language
communicative competence of Vietnamese learners of English.

iii


LIST OF ABBREVIATIONS
CA: Conversation Analysis
CP: Co-operation Principle
D: Social Distance
FTAs: Face Threatening Acts
G: Giver
H: Hearer
MP: Model Person
P: Relative Power
PP: Politeness Principle
R: Ranking of Imposition
R: Receiver
S: Speaker

iv


LIST OF FIGURES AND TABLES

Figure 1: Possible strategies for doing FTAs
Figure 2: Strategies to minimize risk of losing face

Table 1: The informants’ status parameters
Table 2: Offering gift strategies
Table 3: Strategies used to offer a gift
Table 4: Ranking of occurrence of gift offer strategies in order of rate

v


TABLE OF CONTENTS

Certificate of originality..................................................................................... i
Acknowledgements........................................................................................... ii
Abstract ........................................................................................................... iii
List of abbreviations ........................................................................................ iv
List of tables and figures ....................................................................................v
CHAPTER 1: INTRODUCTION ...................................................................1
1. RATIONALE OF THE STUDY ....................................................................1
2. AIMS OF THE STUDY ................................................................................2
3. OBJECTIVES OF THE STUDY ...................................................................2
4. SCOPE OF THE STUDY ..............................................................................2
5. SIGNIFICANCE OF THE STUDY ...............................................................2
6. STRUCTURE OF THE STUDY: ..................................................................3
CHAPTER 2: LITERATURE REVIEW AND THEORETICAL
BACKGROUND ..............................................................................................4
2.1. Review of the previous studies related to the theme of the thesis ................4
2.2. Review of theoretical preliminaries employable for the research ................4
2.2.1. Language and communication ..................................................................4
2.2.2. Communicative competence ....................................................................5
2.2.3. John Rogers Searle’s definition of speech acts .........................................7
2.2.4. Speech act theory .....................................................................................8

2.2.5. Classification of speech acts................................................................... 10
2.2.6. Brown and Levinson’s theory of politeness ............................................ 11
2.2.7. The notion of face .................................................................................. 13
2.2.8. Politeness principles ............................................................................... 16
2.2.9. Classification of politeness strategies ..................................................... 18

vi


2.2.9.1. Bald On-record.................................................................................... 18
2.2.9.2. Positive politeness ............................................................................... 19
2.2.9.3. Negative politeness strategies .............................................................. 22
2.2.9.4. Off- record (indirect) ........................................................................... 26
2.2.9.5. Social factors affecting politeness strategies ........................................ 26
2.2.10. Offering as a speech act ....................................................................... 27
2.2.11. Gift offers............................................................................................. 29
2.3. Summary................................................................................................... 30
CHAPTER 3: METHODOLOGY ................................................................ 31
3.1. Research-governing orientations ............................................................... 31
3.1.1. Research questions ................................................................................. 31
3.1.2. Research settings .................................................................................... 31
3.1.3. Research approach ...................................... Error! Bookmark not defined.
3.1.4. Principles/criteria for data collection and data analysis .......................... 33
3.2. Research methods ..................................................................................... 33
3.2.1. Major methods vs. supporting methods .................................................. 33
3.2.2. Data collection techniques ...................................................................... 34
3.2.3. Data analysis techniques ........................................................................ 36
3.3. Summary ................................................................................................... 36
CHAPTER 4: FINDINGS AND DISCUSSION ........................................... 38
4.1. Communicative strategies used in offering................................................ 38

4.1.1. Direct offer............................................................................................. 38
4.1.2. Showing concern for the Receiver. ......................................................... 39
4.1.3. Giving the Receiver a surprise ............................................................... 40
4.1.4. Showing modesty of the gift value ......................................................... 41
4.1.5. Stating reason/purpose of gift offers ....................................................... 42
4.1.6. Wishes ................................................................................................... 44
4.1.7. Expressing the Giver’s feeling ............................................................... 45
4.1.8. Asking for permission to give a gift ....................................................... 46
vii


4.2. Gift offering strategies as seen from communicating partners’ parameters 47
4.2.1. Someone you dislike .............................................................................. 47
4.2.2. Close friend ............................................................................................ 49
4.2.3. Brother/sister.......................................................................................... 50
4.2.4. Employee ............................................................................................... 51
4.2.5. Employer ............................................................................................... 52
4.3. Similarities and differences in the politeness strategies for gift
offers…………………………….……………………………………………...53
4.4.Summary.................................................................................................. 538
CHAPTER V: CONCLUSION ................................................................... 599
5.1. Recapitulation ......................................................................................... 599
5.2. Concluding remarks…………………………………………………….....59
5.2. Implications for using gift offers ............................................................... 60
5.3. Limitations and suggestions for further study............................................ 60
REFERENCES ................................................................................................ 60
APPENDIXES 1: SURVEY QUESTIONAIRE ............................................... 63
APPENDIXES 2: BẢN ĐIỀU TRA................................................................. 66
APPENDIX 3: OBSERVATION SHEET OBSERVATION SHEET .............. 69

viii


CHAPTER 1: INTRODUCTION
1. RATIONALE OF THE STUDY
With the great speed of developing and expanding, English has emerged as
the most powerful international language all over the world. Starting from its
use gradually turning into colossal, plus the characteristics of convenience,
English on those days can be said to be the “golden key to every door”.
Language plays an important role in our life. Language is not only for
communication but also for cultural exchange among nations. As you can see,
language is a multifunctional tool that helps you satisfy a variety of needs. Of
which, conversation, therefore, is the most fundamental form of communication
in daily interaction because it provides you with the means of conducting human
affairs.
There are many ways to give gift offers in Vietnamese and English. But to
“giving gift offers” in an effective way is by no means easy. People often have
difficulties in giving gift offers in another language and sometimes make
mistake and lead to misunderstanding between communicating partners. It is
exactly the case to many students of English in Vietnam, especially students
from the thesis author’s training institution. And although gift offers are a
common feature of our everyday lives, it is surprising the little attention that has
been paid to this topic This leads the author to the decision to conduct a research
into “A STUDY ON ENGLISH POLITENESS STRATEGIES FOR GIFT
OFFERS

WITH

REFERENCE

TO

THE

VIETNAMESE

EQUIVALENTS” to find out the similarities and differences in English
politeness strategies for gift offers with reference to Vietnamese equivalents. It
is hoped that the thesis may contribute some help to learners to avoid
mistakes and failures in gift offers as well as communication.

1


2. AIMS OF THE STUDY
The thesis is conducted to aim at:
•

Investigating the English politeness strategies commonly employed for

gift offers with reference to the Vietnamese equivalents.
•

Helping teachers apply successfully the results of the research in

teaching EFL learners the politeness strategies of gift offering in English and
Vietnamese.
3. OBJECTIVES OF THE STUDY
To achieve the mentioned-above aims, the following objectives are put forward:
•

Finding out the similarities and differences between the English politeness

strategies for gift offers and those in Vietnamese.
•

Providing some possible implications for teaching the English politeness

strategies for gift offers to Vietnamese learners of English as a foreign language
4. SCOPE OF THE STUDY
The thesis mainly concentrates on the verbal expressions in offering gifts
from politeness strategies perspective. In fact, what to say to give a gift offer
depends very much on the parameter of the communication partners, the
relationship between the Giver (G) and the Receiver (R), the context and the
reason of offering gifts. Paralinguistic and extra linguistic are parts of speech
act. However, because of the limitation of the thesis, they are beyond the scope
of the study. The study is only confined to one aspect of language in action:
what politeness strategies are most commonly found in association with gift
offering. Moreover, gift offering in the study is simply understood as a nice
behavior in daily life to express the gratitude, concern and attention to the
Receiver.
5. SIGNIFICANCE OF THE STUDY
The significance of the thesis can be discussed from two major perspectives:
•

The information in the thesis may help learners gain an insight into gift

offers from the perspective of the English politeness strategies.

2

• The thesis, to some extent, can give some guidelines for Vietnamese learners
of English as a foreign language about gift offers.

6. STRUCTURE OF THE STUDY:
The thesis is designed with five chapters.
Chapter 1 is the “Introduction”, which presents the background to the study,
aims of the study, research questions, methods of study, scopes of the study,
significance of the study and an overview of the thesis.
Chapter 2 is “Literature review and Theoretical background” which provides
the readers with the literature review of the research, which attempts to present
the theoretical background including general understanding about language
learning process, an overview of gift offers in English and Vietnamese:
commonly employed politeness strategies.
Chapter 3 is “Methodology” which describes in detail the research
methodology which comprises the information of the subjects, instruments of
data collection and methods of data analysis.
Chapter 4 named “Findings and discussion” presents the two main issues.
Chapter 5 is the “Conclusion”. This part provides conclusions on each of the
objectives, implications for using gift offers in teaching the English politeness
strategies for gift offers to Vietnamese learners of English as a foreign language
and suggestions for further research.

3


CHAPTER 2:
LITERATURE REVIEW AND THEORETICAL
BACKGROUND

2.1. Review of the previous studies related to the theme of the thesis
There were some writers in the world investigating to speech acts such as
Wierzbicka offering shares some common features with such other speech acts
as inviting, volunteering and promising. Austin used speech acts to refer to an
utterance and the total situation in which the utterance is issued. Yule argues that
there are three dimensions of speech acts. Searle claims there are at base five
broad classes of illocutionary points: declaratives, representatives, expressives,
directives and commisives.
Gift giving is a frequent consumer activity receiving enormous attention from
consumer researchers (e.g., Belk and Coon 1993; Otnes and Beltramini 1996;
Sherry 1983, Blum-Kulla 1987)
2.2. Review of theoretical preliminaries employable for the research
2.2.1. Language and communication
Language is considered one of the highest and the most amazing achievements
of human kind in labor process. Language and communication are the two
factors that cannot separate. A language can be defined as a system of signs
(verbal or otherwise) intended for communication. It is a system since its
constituent components relate to each other in an intricate and yet organized
fashion. Again, it is intended for communication, for it can be safely assumed
that we speak to pass on information to others. But communication is not the
only function of language. In fact, language can be used for dreaming, internal
monologue, soliloquy, poetry, etc. For the sake of this discussion, we take the
position that, essentially, language plays a communicative role.
Communication can be viewed as a matter of coding and de-coding linguistic
information. The speaker codes information and puts his thoughts into words,
while the listener de-codes the linguistic information, taking the input from the
4


speaker and translating it back into a thought. In this scenario, it is the code (in

this case language) that matters for communication. Individuals with a common
code can communicate because they share that code. This is an intuitively
appealing view given that communication in our everyday lives so often relies
on language, be it in face-to-face conversation, talking on the phone, writing an
e-mail, or other forms of exchange. The position that it is the code that matters
for communication is nicely phrased by the philosopher John Searle:
“One can in certain special circumstances ‘request’ someone to leave the room
without employing any conventions, but unless someone has a language one
cannot request of someone that he e.g., undertake a research project on the
problem of diagnosing and treating mononucleosis in undergraduates in
American universities.” (Searle, 1969, p. 38)
2.2.2. Communicative competence
Communicative competence is a term in linguistics which refers to a
language user's grammatical knowledge of syntax, morphology, phonology and
the like, as well as social knowledge about how and when to use utterances
appropriately. The concept of communicative competence (a term coined by
linguist Dell Hymes in 1972) grew out of resistance to the concept of linguistic
competence introduced by Noam Chomsky (1965).
Most regretfully, Hyme’s definition of communicative competence is
misinterpreted as being different from linguistic competence. That is, linguistic
competence, which is a part of communicative competence according to
Hymes’s definition, is separated from communicative competence. To correct
such misconception, Canal and Swain (1980) suggest that grammatical accuracy
should be included as an element of communicative competence, and that rules
of language use cannot be operated if rules of grammar are excluded.
Accordingly, they proposed a theoretical framework of communicative
competence which include four components: (1) grammatical competence, the
ability to master the linguistic form including vocabulary, word formation,
sentence formation and so on; (2) discourse competence, the ability to combine
5

grammatical forms and meanings to achieve a unified spoken or written test in
different genres; (3) strategic competence, the ability to mastery of how to use
communication

strategies,

which

can

compensate

for

breakdown

of

communication due the performance variables; and (4) sociolinguistic
competence, the socio-cultural norms and rules controlling the appropriateness
of utterances in different social contexts.
Dittmar (1976) points out that linguistic codes are not the only
component

of communicative competence. He argues that communicative

competence also includes a whole repertoire of psychological, social, and
pragmatic strategies. The elaboration of communicative competence and the

identification of its components gave socio-pragmatics the new role of
determining "what a speaker needs to know to be able to communicate
effectively in culturally significant settings" (Rivers, 1981: 84). The
possession of this kind of knowledge and the ability to use it in
organizing communication had been noted as related to the degree of
socialization of the speaker.
As sociolinguistic competence is claimed to take a crucial role in verbal
communication, the sociolinguistic aspect starts to be valued. For example, Cao
Xuan Hao (1991), in his study on sociolinguistic competence in complimenting
act between speakers of Vietnamese and American English, explores sociocultural differences between the two societies, in order to locate universality and
specificity of the speech act in different languages. For example, the categories
of complimenting strategies may exist universally in languages, but they may
carry different semantic meanings to achieve different functions. For example,
the word “like” in “I like your dress.” has the meaning of praise in American
norm. That is, speakers of American English tend to use “like” to serve the
function of compliment. On the other hand, Vietnamese speakers tend to assign
the meaning of “muốn, thích” to the word “like,” and thus the word “like”
functions as direct requesting in Vietnamese culture.

6


2.2.3. John Rogers Searle’s definition of speech acts
John Searle (1969) brought greater systematization to the ideas which
Austin had so perceptively explored. He focused on the idea that meaning is a
kind of doing. He claimed that the study of language is just a sub-part of the
theory of action. Searle crystallized the concepts of illocutionary act and
illocutionary force to the extent where one can reasonably speak of his
speech act theory as the classical account which functions as a point of
departure for subsequent work on speech acts. The term "speech act theory" is

in practice a reference to illocutionary acts.
The conditions which were required to be present if a given speech act
was to be effectively performed, were used by Searle to offer definitions of
various speech acts. Searle proposes four kinds of rules on the basis of these
conditions:
(1) Propositional

Content

Rules:

specify

the

kind

of

meaning

expressed by the propositional part of an utterance;
(2) Preparatory Rules: delineate the conditions which are pre-requisite
to the performance of the speech act;
(3) Sincerity Rules: outline the conditions which must obtain if the speech
act is to be performed sincerely;
(4) Essential Rules: specify what the speech act must conventionally count
as.
On the basis of these four rule types, different speech acts can be easily
distinguished. In other words, speech act theory lends itself to establishing

systems of classification for illocutions.
Searle (1979), as an improvement of the classification of the speech acts
proposed by Austin, classifies speech acts into:
a) Representatives: commit S (peaker) to the truth of some proposition;
b) Directives: count as attempts to bring about some effect through the action
of H(earer);
7


c) Expressives: count as the expression of some psychological state;
d) Commissives: commit S to some future action;
e) Declaratives: are speech acts whose "successful" performance brings
about the correspondence between the propositional content and reality.
2.2.4. Speech act theory
John Rogers Searle (cf. Searle, 1981.) has been credited with the speech act
theory. However, any attempt at understanding what is meant by the so-called
speech act theory would be a failure unless one distinguishes between 'speech
situation', 'speech event', and 'speech acts'.
The most useful distinction between the three terms has been proposed
by Hymes (1972). Within a community one finds many situations associated
with speech, such as meals, parties. These situations, however, are not in
themselves governed by consistent rules throughout. Consequently, a
simple relabeling of them in terms of speech will not do much. It is,
therefore, more useful to restrict the term "speech event" to activities that are
directly governed by rules or norms for the use of speech. Samples of
conversations occurring in such activities as private conversations, class
lectures, etc. belong in this category. "Speech acts," in a narrower sense, are
the minimal terms of the set "speech situation, speech event, and speech act."
A speech act is an utterance which functions as a functional unit in
communication. It serves as the minimal unit of analysis. Speech acts are

conditioned by rules of conduct and interpretation. Acts such as giving
reports, making promises, and apologizing ... belong to this category.
One significant misconception that may stem from Searle's classification of
speech acts is that each conversation consists of only one single speech act.
A good number of conversations, however, are multifunctional. According to
Labov and Fanshel (1977: 29), "most utterances can be seen as performing
several speech acts simultaneously." Conversation is not a chain of utterances,

8


but rather a matrix of utterances and actions "bound together by a web of
understanding and reactions."
Speech act theory, even though influential in a number of fields, has not
been without its critics. Flowerdew (1990: 81-103) lists the most important
flaws and drawbacks of the speech act theory. These flaws are perceivable in
the following domains:
1) the exact number of speech acts;
2) discrete categories versus scale of meaning;
3) indirect speech acts and concept of literal force;
4) contrast between specific and diffuse acts;
5) size of speech act realization forms;
6) relation between locution, illocution, and interaction; and
7) relation between the whole and the parts in discourse.
Any account of speech act theory should never overlook the so-called
felicity conditions. According to Austin (1963: 63), the term felicity condition
refers to the criteria which must be satisfied if a speech act is to achieve its
purpose. In other words, for a speech act to be appropriately performed or
realized, there are some conventions. These are referred to as felicity conditions
or the so-called social conventions. The speakers and the listeners should heed

these conditions to guarantee the achievement of the purposes for which any
given speech act is performed.
Several types of felicity conditions have been suggested: (1) Preparatory
conditions relate to

whether the person performing a speech act has the

authority to do so; (2) Sincerity conditions relate to the degree of sincerity
with which a speech act is performed; and (3) Essential conditions relate to
the way the speaker, having performed a speech act, is committed to a certain
kind of belief or behavior (cf. Searle, 1981).
Speakers of a language, however, may sometimes fail to commit the felicity
conditions of an utterance for one purpose or another. According to Lyons
9


(1977: 157), the utterance "Will you drive?" is inappropriate as a request if the
speaker knows that the hearer has not learnt to drive, and the mutual recognition
of such inappropriateness would, in turn, lead to an interpretation of a different
order (e.g. joking, sarcasm, etc.). Austin (1962) refers to such utterances as
infelicitous.
2.2.5. Classification of speech acts
Speech acts can be analysed on three levels:
•

Locutionary act, the performance of an utterance: the actual utterance and

its ostensible meaning, comprising phonetic, phatic and rhetic acts
corresponding to the verbal, syntactic and semantic aspects of any meaningful
utterance. In speech-act theory, a locutionary act is the act of making a

meaningful utterance. Also known as a locution or an utterance ac, the term
locutionary act was introduced by British philosopher John L. Austin in How to
Do Things With Words (1962). American philosopher John Searle has replaced
Austin's concept of the locutionary act with what Searle calls the propositional
act--i.e., the act of expressing a proposition. "In performing a locutionary act
we shall also be performing such an act as:
asking or answering a question;
giving some information or an assurance or a warning;
announcing a verdict or an intention;
pronouncing sentence;
making an appointment or an appeal or a criticism;
making an identification or giving a description; and the numerous like.
(John L. Austin, How to Do Things With Words, 2nd ed. Harvard University
Press, 1975)
• Illocutionary act: the pragmatic 'illocutionary force' of the utterance, thus its
intended significance as a socially valid verbal action. In speech-act theory, an
illocutionary act is the way in which a sentence is used to express an attitude
with a certain function or "force" (called illocutionary force).
Steven Davis notes that an illocutionary act can be made explicit "by the use
of a performative verb formula. For example, if a speakers says, 'I'll be there'
10


and it is unclear whether it is a promise that has been made the speaker can
make it explicit by saying 'I promise that I'll be there'" ("Anti-Individualism and
Speech-Act Theory" in Foundations of Speech Act Theory, 1994).
• Perlocutionary act: its actual effect, such as persuading, convincing, scaring,
enlightening, inspiring, or otherwise getting someone to do or realize something,
whether intended or not (Austin 1962). In speech-act theory, a perlocutionary
act is an action or state of mind brought about by, or as a consequence of, saying

something. Also known as perlocutionary effect. "The distinction between the
illocutionary act and the perlocutionary act is important," says Ruth M.
Kempson: "the perlocutionary act is the consequent effect on the hearer which
the speaker intends should follow from his utterance" (Semantic Theory). a
perlocutionary act is an act performed by saying something, and not in saying
something. Persuading, angering, inciting, comforting and inspiring are often
perlocutionary acts; but they would never begin an answer to the question 'What
did he say?' Perlocutionary acts, in contrast with locutionary and illocutionary
acts, which are governed by conventions, are not conventional but natural acts
(Austin [1955], p. 121). Persuading, angering, inciting, etc. cause physiological
changes in the audience, either in their states or behavior; conventional acts do
not."(Aloysius Martinich, Communication and Reference. Walter de Gruyter,
1984).
2.2.6. Brown and Levinson’s theory of politeness
The theory of politeness proposed by Brown and Levinson (1987) is widely
recognized and remains relevant to contemporary research as the basis for
further elaboration (e.g. Harris 2001: 452, Pérez de Ayala 2001: 144-5). It is
also (together with Leech’s model) the most common model presented in
textbooks for students of pragmatics, e.g. Yule (1989), Thomas (1995), Mey
(2000), and Cameron (2005).
The general frame for this model (Brown and Levinson 1987: 4) is the
assumption about essentially rational and efficient nature of communication
lying also at the heart of Grice’s Co-operative principle (CP). In this conception,
11


the Co-operative principle (CP) is understood as the default principle governing
verbal interaction, which is not deviated from without a reason. Politeness, then,
is interpreted as a principle motivating such deviations from the most efficient
way of communication, in other words, a major underlying motivation for

flouting the maxims of Co-operative principle (CP). The word major does justice
to the fact that there are, as Brown and Levinson admit (1987: 95), other motives
for not following the maxim, such as to avoid responsibility.
However, unlike Co-operative principle (CP), politeness does not have an
irrevocable status as a principle. It cannot be interpreted as the background
presumption with which interlocutors enter interaction. In this respect, Brown
and Levinson disagree with Leech, who argues that both principles, i.e. CP (Cooperative principle and PP (Politeness Principle) are basically coordinated
(Leech 1995: 80). They point out (1987: 5) that politeness must be expressed in a
clear way, i.e. openly manifested.
To substantiate this claim, they invoke Goffman’s notion of a ‘virtual
offence’ (1987: 33) which is supposed to predict that “the non-communication of
the polite attitude will be read not merely as the absence of that attitude, but as
the inverse, the holding of an aggressive attitude.” To draw a contrastive parallel
with Co-operative principle (CP), it means that one does not set out to look for a
possible interpretation of an utterance as polite, contrary to what it communicates
at face value. This contrasts with the way the mechanism of looking for an
alternative interpretation works in the case of conversational implicatures,
interpreted as cooperative contributions at a deeper level despite superficial
flouting of the CP. Brown and Levinson’s example of ‘Shut your mouth’
demonstrates this clearly – there is hardly any possibility to read it as an
expression of polite attitude.
To get straight to the core of Brown and Levinson’s theory,
understanding their notion of face is essential.

12


2.2.7. The notion of face
Brown and Levinson present their theory as an abstract model of
communication. They introduce a Model Person (MP), whose two basic

attributes are rationality and face (1987: 58). Rationality is interpreted as meansend reasoning, which manifests itself on the level of verbal interaction by way of
“deriving linguistic strategies as means satisfying communicative and faceoriented ends”. The assumption about rational and cooperative behavior is
derived from language usage, where inferences known as ‘conversational
implicatures’ are made on the basis of this very assumption.
The central notion of face is defined as “the public self-image that every
member wants to claim for himself” and comprises two aspects, i.e. negative
and positive face.
Negative face is defined as: “the want of every ‘competent adult member’
that his actions be unimpeded by others”. In other words, it is linked to the basic
human desire to be independent and free from imposition.
Positive face is then defined in the following way: “the want of every
member that his wants be desirable to at least some others.” This aspect of face
is therefore the space for, so to speak, filling up the autonomous being with
personal content, i.e. self-image that the person wants others to respect and
appreciate.
Brown and Levinson borrowed the concept of face from Goffman (1967),
however, they acknowledge that it is also related to the notion implied by the
idiomatic expression “to lose face”. This connection suggests that interlocutors
are aware of the risk to one’s face involved in interaction and therefore of their
interdependence as far as face maintenance is concerned. Thus, it is argued that,
in general, it is “to mutual interest of two MPs to maintain each other’s face”,
unless one of the participants can secure respect for his/her face without
complying with this reciprocity, e.g. by coercion, trickery. This imbalance
concerning what might be called face demands and face rights brings up the
question of social factors, such as power and distance, playing a crucial role in
13


shaping the interaction process. I will take a closer look at these factors later in
this chapter.

It is significant that Brown and Levinson treat both aspects of face as basic wants.
The attention paid to them in communication is interpreted as having rational
foundation in terms of practical means-end reasoning mentioned above. In terms of
face wants, this means that in order to have one’s wants respected and at least
partially satisfied by others, one has to pay the same respect and attention.
However, it is pointed out that there is an obvious limitation regarding the desire
for acceptance and appreciation. Apart from the most general symbolic
satisfaction of wants, people usually have their individual positive face wants
targeted at particular people or groups of people.
The notion of face as an abstract notion that interlocutors orient themselves is
claimed to be a universal phenomenon underlying communication in all
languages. On the other hand, Brown and Levinson stress that in particular
societies, it is subject to cultural specification arising from specific
understanding of the role of an individual in society, which may, among other
things, include different scope for personal territory or limitation on public
display, as well as culture-specific preconditions of extra face concerns. In
communicating, people may give a threat to another individual’s self-image or
face want, they tend to create a face threatening act (FTA). Some actions might
be taken to lessen the possible threat. This is described as a face saving act
Brown and Levinson (1987:60) do not raise rules or principles but suggest
five strategies (figure 1) to deal with face threatening acts (FTAs). They also
number these five strategies to mean that the greater the face threat is, the
greater –numbered strategy should be employed.

14


1. without redressive action
Lesser

on record
2. Positive politeness
Do the FTA
4.off record

with redressive action

3. negative politeness
5. Don’t do the FTA
Greater

Figure 1: Possible strategies for doing FTAs (Brown and Levinson, 1987)
The diagram shows that when encountering an FTA, the speaker can choose
one of the five possibilities.
Brown and Levinson (1987) imply by numbering the possibilities that
negative politeness is “more polite” than positive politeness. This can be seen in
the diagram where they number the former and the latter (off record and with
redressive action) respectively. For universal validity, Nguyen Quang
(1999:129) proposes another one.

15