A study on politeness strategies preferred by the british in responding to complaints

MINISTRY OF EDUCATION AND TRAINING
HANOI OPEN UNIVERSITY

ĐỖ THỊ HOÀI HƯƠNG

A STUDY ON POLITENESS STRATEGIES PREFERED BY THE BRITISH
IN RESPONDING TO COMPLAINTS
(NGHIÊN CỨU VỀ CÁC CHIẾN LƯỢC LỊCH SỰ ĐƯỢC NGƯỜI ANH ƯA
DÙNG TRONG CÁCH HỒI ĐÁP LỜI PHÀN NÀN)

M.A THESIS
Field: English Language
Code: 60220201

Hanoi, 2016


MINISTRY OF EDUCATION AND TRAINING
HANOI OPEN UNIVERSITY

ĐỖ THỊ HOÀI HƯƠNG

A STUDY ON POLITENESS STRATEGIES PREFERED BY THE BRITISH
IN RESPONDING TO COMPLAINTS
(NGHIÊN CỨU VỀ CÁC CHIẾN LƯỢC LỊCH SỰ ĐƯỢC NGƯỜI ANH ƯA
DÙNG TRONG CÁCH HỒI ĐÁP LỜI PHÀN NÀN)

M.A THESIS
Field: English Language
Code: 60220201

Supervisor: Assoc. Prof. Vo Dai Quang, Ph.D.
Hanoi, 2016

2


CERTIFICATE OF ORIGINALITY

I, the undersigned, hereby my authority of the study project report entitled “A study
on politeness strategies preferred by the British in responding to complaints”
submitted in partial fulfilment of the requirements for the degree of Master in English
Language. Except wherether reference is indicated, no other person’s work has been
used without due acknowledgement in the text of the thesis.

Hanoi, 2016
Do Thi Hoai Huong

Approved by
SUPERVISOR

(Signature and full name)
Assoc. Prof. Vo Dai Quang, Ph.D.
Date:.............

i


ACKNOWLEDGEMENT

First and foremost, I would like to express my deepest gratitude to my professor,

Assoc. Prof. Vo Dai Quang, Ph.D. From the point of a teacher, an advisor and a
mentor, you introduced and inspired me to do this research. My professional
development has been growing increasingly with your precious guidance and
continuous motivation.
My special thanks go to all my lecturers in Post-graduate Department of Ha Noi Open
University for their precious assistance, knowledge and enthusiasm.
I own my parents for their constant source of love, support and encouragement. I am
immensely grateful to them for standing behind me whenever I needed them
especially in times of difficulties.
I would also want to extend a special shout-out to all the research participants.
Without your valuable opinions and ideas on the questionnaire, the project would not
have been accomplished.
Finally, my special thanks go to all my dear friends for their understanding and
assistance during the process of preparing this research. I count each of you as my
special blessings.
While I am greatly indebted to all of these people for their tireless help to my
completion of this thesis, I myself remain responsible for any inadequacies that are
found in this work.

ii


ABSTRACT
In our daily life, complaints and response to complaints do involve in both culture and
communication due to their important role. In the research, the writer focuses on
finding politeness strategies preferred by the British in responding to complaints. The
researcher hopes to have intensive understanding of British culture and minimize the
uncomfortable circumstances when communicating.
Two main methodologies are used in the thesis are qualitative and quantitative ones.
The study reveals that British speakers were very direct in most situations. Regarding

the choice of directive act, British speakers showed their directness in their
complaints by adding more directive acts. That is to say, the British tended to be
more explicit in pointing out what they wanted by issuing additional acts.

With regard to complaining strategies, it is clear that the British speakers were very
direct in general. In lower power settings, British speakers tended to use Indirect
Accusation, Direct Accusation and Modified Blame. They also increased the level
of directness by employing more imposing strategies such as Direct Accusation
and Explicit Blame on Behaviour.

Choice of directive act was also mentioned in the thesis. Surprisingly, along with
direct strategies, British speakers also used additional acts. Request for Repair was the
most popular act among them.

Basing on the research results, some pedagogical implications in teaching English as
foreign languages for Vietnamese learners are also suggested by the researcher.

iii


iv


LIST OF ABBREVIATION
S: speakers
H: hearers
(-P): S has lower power than H
(=P): S and H are equal in power
(+P): S has higher power than H
(-D): S and H are familiar with each other

(+D): S and H are unfamiliar with each other
Strat.: strategy
DCT: Discourse completion task

v


LIST OF CHARTS AND FIGURES
Chart 1 : Choice os strategies with respect to –P
Chart 2: Choice of strategy with respect to =P
Chart 3: Choice of strategy with respect to +P
Chart 4: Choice of strategy with respect to -D
Chart 5: Choice of strategy with respect to +D
Chart 6: Choice of directive act with respect to -P
Chart 7: Choice of directive act in equal setting (=P)
Chart 8: Choice of directive act with respect to +P
Chart 9: Choice of directive act with respect to -D
Chart 10: Choice of directive act with respect to +D

Figure 1: The Levels of Culture & their Interaction
Figure: 2 Three levels of uniqueness in human mental programming
Figure 3: The possible strategies for doing FTAs

vi

PAGES


TABLE OF CONTENTS

CERTIFICATE OF ORIGINALITY ......................................................................... i
ACKNOWLEDGEMENT ................................................................................................ ii

ABSTRACT ..................................................................................................................... iii
LIST OF ABBREVIATION ........................................................................................v
TABLE OF CONTENT
CHAPTER 1: INTRODUCTION............................................................................ vii
1.1.

Rationale for the study....................................................................................1

1.2. Aims of the study ................................................................................................2
1.3. Objectives of the study .......................................................................................2
1.4. Scope of the study ..............................................................................................2
1.5. Significance of the study....................................................................................2
1.6. Research methodology........................................................................................3
1.7. Structural organization of the study .................................................................3
CHAPTER 2: LITERATURE REVIEW ...................................................................5
2.1.

REVIEW OF PREVIOUS STUDY ...............................................................5

2.1.1.Review of previous studies overseas ............................................................5
2.1.2. Review of previous studies in Vietnam .......................................................5
2.2 REVIEW OF THE THEORETICAL BACKGROUND .................................6
2.2.1. Communication ...........................................Error! Bookmark not defined.

vii

2.2.2. Inter-cultural communication .....................................................................7
2.2.3. Speech acts and the act of responding to complaints ................................7
2.2.3. 1. Speech acts ..............................................................................................7
2.2.3. 2. The act of complaining ...........................................................................8
2.2.3.3. Responding to complaints ....................................................................11
2.2.4. Complaint strategies ...................................................................................11
2.2.4.1. No explicit reproach – Category I .......................................................11
2.2.4.2. Expression of annoyance or disapproval – Category II ...................12
2.2.4.3. Accusation – Category III....................................................................12
2.2.4.4. Blame – Category IV ............................................................................12
2.2.5. Directive acts ...............................................................................................13
2.2.5.1. Request for repair ................................................................................13
2.2.5.2. Threat ....................................................................................................13
2.2.5.3. Request for forbearance ......................................................................13
2.2.6. Politeness .....................................................................................................13
2.2.6.1. Grice’s cooperative principle ..............................................................14
2.2.6.2. Lakoff and Leech’s politeness theory .................................................15
2.2.6.3. Brown and Levinson’s politeness theory............................................17
2.2.7. Social factors affecting communication....................................................21
2.8. Summary............................................................................................................25
CHAPTER 3: METHODOLOGY ............................................................................26
3.1.

Research-governing orientations .................................................................26

3.1.1.
viii

Research questions .................................................................................26

3.1.2.

Research setting ......................................................................................26

3.1.3.

Research approaches..............................................................................27

3.1.4.

Participants .............................................................................................27

3.2.

Research methods..........................................................................................27

3.2.1.

Major methods vs. Supporting methods ..............................................27

3.2.2.

Data collection instruments ...................................................................28

3.2.3.

Data analysis ...........................................................................................28

13.3. Summary ......................................................................................................29

CHAPTER 4: FINDINGS AND DISCUSSION .......................................................30
4.1. Choice of strategy .............................................................................................30
4.2. Choice of directive acts .....................................................................................37
4.3. Pedagogical implication and suggestions........................................................42
4.3.1. How to improve learners’cultural background knowledge ...................42
4.3.2. How to apply cultural background knowledge to teaching process ......43
4.4. Summary..........................................................................................................466
CHAPTER 5: CONCLUSION ................................................................................477
5.1. Recapitulation .................................................................................................477
5.2. Concluding remarks .......................................................................................498
5.3. Limitation of the research ..............................................................................500
5.4. Suggestions for further studies ......................................................................512
APPENDICES .............................................................................................................52
REFERENCES ..........................................................................................................623

ix


CHAPTER 1: INTRODUCTION

1.1. Rationale for the study
Many people all over the world use English as the key medium of communication in
almost every field. Not only is English the official language in English-speaking
countries but also an international language. However, due to the fact that not every
English speaker is native speaker, it is unavoidable that there might be
misunderstanding or misestimating situations that put the Speaker (S) and/or the
Hearer (H) in confusion and sometimes worse, in displeasure or even anger. That
leads to a constant need of more thorough and deeper investigation into the
relationship between culture and communication in order to minimize such situations
when people from different countries interact with each other.

Likewise, complaints and response to complaints do involve in both culture and
communication since they are inevitable part of our daily life. However, many studies
regarding the speech act of request, giving and receiving compliments, promising or
addressing terms and so on have been carried out in other inter-language of English
learners of different language backgrounds, but little attention is paid to the speech act
of complaining, and the number of researches concerning the act of responding to
make been dedicated. This is surprising because everyone complains sometimes and
also frequently responds to others’ complaints. In other words, they may speak in
different ways – not only because they use different linguistic codes, involving
different lexicons and different grammars, but also because their ways of using the
codes are different (Wierzbicka, 1991). That is the reason why when we do not
understand the different cultures reflecting in ways people communication we might
easily destroy the whole relationship, especially in responding to complaints which is
obviously a sensitive issue.

1


Since the researcher finds this inter-cultural problem worth investigating, she decides
to conduct this paper to dig deeper in the verbal responses to complaints in Britain.
This study is carried out with the researcher’s fervent hope of deeper understanding
of British culture and minimizing the uncomfortable circumstances when receiving
complaints.
As responding to complaints is an area in which not much research has been
conducted , the researcher comes up with her paper’s title: “Politeness strategies
preferred by the British in responding to complaints ”.
1.2. Aims of the study
The study aims at finding the favourable politeness strategies used by the Brittish to
respond to their complaints and enhancing the competency of using politeness
strategies when communicating.

1.3. Objectives of the study
-To highlight the politeness strategies commonly preferred by the British in
responding to complaints.
-To propose pedagogical implications in teaching English as foreign languages for
Vietnamese learners.
1.4. Scope of the study
Academic scope: Politeness strategies and directive acts

1.5. Significance of the study
The information in the study may help English learners achieve an overview about
British preferred politeness strategies in responding to complaints so they can select
the preferably suitable and effective responding strategies in accordance to their own
cases.
2


The study, to some extents, can give an overview and clearer awareness about
communication regarding receiving complaints .
1.6. Research methodology
The researcher used two main methods: quantitative and qualitative in the paper
graduation.

To ensure the validity and reliability , the data were collected via

questionnaires namely the Discourse Completion Task (DCT) and metapragmatic
questionnaires.
1.7. Structural organization of the study
The study consists of three parts as follows.
Chater 1 (Introduction) highlights Rationale, Aims of the Study and Research
questions, Method of the Study, Scope of the Study, Significance of the Study and

Organization of the Study.
Chapter 2 (Literature review) provides a review of previous studies oversea as well
as those in Vietnam. Chapter 2 also provides the theoretical framework of the study,
including discussion of the key terms and related studies.
Chapter 3 (Methodology) describes the way the research is conducted, including the
research setting, participants, instruments of data collection as well as the procedure
employed to carry out data analysis.
Chapter 4 (Findings and discussion) presents, analyses and discusses the results that
the researcher found out from the collected data. This chapter also gives answer to the
research questions. In addition, some pedagogical implication and suggestions to
teaching process are suggested in chapter 4.
Chapter 5 (Conclusion) summarizes the key points, points out the limitation of the
research and suggests areas for futher research.
3


4


CHAPTER 2: LITERATURE REVIEW
Chapter 2 gives an overview of previous studies overseas as well as those in Vietnam.
It also presents preliminary theoretical background which is of the great importance
to the study. Firstly, it deals with the conceptual aspects of the relationship between
culture and communication. Secondly, the speech act theory and the act of responding
to complaints will be reviewed. Thirdly, it highlights the theory of politeness strategies
and social factors which affect verbal reactions in social framework. And lastly, it
explains how the researcher’s study fulfils some related studies.
2.1. REVIEW OF PREVIOUS STUDY
2.1.1.Review of previous studies overseas
The speech act of refusal occurs when a speaker directly or indirectly say “no” to a

request or invitation. Refusal is a face-threatening act to listener/requestor, inviter,
because it contradicts his or her expectations, and it is often realized through indirect
strategies. Thus it requires a high level of pragmatic competence. Beebe ad Takahashi
(1990), (focusing on the effect of status on the performance of face-threatening acts of
refusals by the Japanese learners of English, have found that Japanese informants
tends to shift their styles more according to interlocutors status than speakers of
American English. Japanese tend to express regrets or apologies more frequently to
people with higher status but less frequently to those with lower social status. They
start refusal with an apology or statement of regret, followed by an excuse, while
American almost always start with an expression of positive opinion such as “I would
like to:, and followed by expressing regret and giving excuse. Moreover, Japanese
excuses are often, much less specific than American ones and in general, the Japanese
refusals often sound more formal.
2.1.2. Review of previous studies in Vietnam

5


Research on Viet Nam speech acts of refusal restricted to indirectness and directness
includes a study on some cross-cultural differences in refusing a request in English
and Vietnamese (Phan, 2001). She found that both Angolophone and Vietnamese
informants tended to use more direct refusals than directs ones. Moreover, both
Anglophone and Vietnamese always exceeded the urbanies in the degree of
indirectness. Informants who did not know any foreign language are less direct and
more indirect than those with knowledge of some foreign languages. There are some
differences between Anglophone and Vietnamese when refusing Comparing the
degree of directness and indirectness of refusals extended by two groups of
informants, all the Anglophone informants were more direct than Vietnamese ones.
In general, as all the other speech acts, refusal occurs in all languages. However,
people coming from different cultures speaking different language refuse in different

ways. Among all the studies on refusals in terms of language examined, English have
been by far the most commonly investigated languages of comparison for studies on
native and non-native refusals, followed by Japanese as a first or second language.
Other languages such as Chinese, Spanish, Mexican, German are also examined
Vietnamese studies on speech acts of refusal are still limited. Moreover compared
among studies of Vietnam speech acts by far, refusals of request or apologies received
more attention than refusals of invitations. Until now there have been some works
studying refusals. Tran Thi Van Dung compared and contrasted strategies in
complaining in American and Vietnamese cultures. Nguyen Phuong Chi studied some
ways of refusals: nonverbal like shaking head, brushing something aside, having a
dirty look... and verbal.
2.2 REVIEW OF THE THEORETICAL BACKGROUND
2.2.1. Communication
Communication is no longer an unfamiliar concept to people. When talking about
communicating, people often link it with the act of transmitting information, opinions
6


or ideas by speech or writing. Communication is defined as follows “Communication
is any process in which people share information, ideas and feelings, that process
involves not only the spoken and written word, but also the body language, personal
mannerism and style, the surroundings –anything that adds meanings to a message”.
Having similar idea, in a shorter way, Levine and Adelman (1993) state that it is “the
process of sharing meaning through verbal and nonverbal behaviour”. From those
definitions, it can be seen that there is always a message to be exchanged in the
process of communication. Also, communication is the exchange of ideas,
information, etc. between two or more persons. In an act of communication there is
usually at least one speaker or sender, a message, which is transmitted, and a person
or persons whom this message is intended (the receiver). The study of communication
is central to sociolinguistics, psycholinguistics, and information theory.

2.2.2Inter-cultural communication
Obviously, the need to communicate is not limited among people having the same
backgrounds. When people from different cultures want to communicate with each
other, there forms the concept of cross-cultural communication. According to Levine,
it is “the process whereby one’s culture affects interaction with a person from another
culture”. It can be deduced that the culture of somebody has a great impact on how
they communicate with other people. This is also what Nguyen Quang proposes in his
book

Inter-cultural

Communication:

“Cross-cultural

communication

is

the

communication (verbal and non-verbal) between people from different cultures:
communication that is influenced by actual values, attitudes and behaviour; the
influence of culture on people and reactions and responses to each other” (1998).
2.2.3. Speech acts and the act of responding to complaints
2.2.3. 1. Speech acts

7

Speech Act theory was originally initiated by the philosopher, J.L. Austin in 1930s
and was expounded in a series of his lectures at Harvard in 1955. In his book How to
do things with words, Austin argues that when we use language, we are performing
certain acts. Traditionally, philosophers have to distinguish between actions and
speaking; on the basis that speaking about something is quite different from doing it.
For example, when a woman says, “This beef is rather tough”, she may not want to
describe the beef but she may want to make a complaint to the hearer and may hope
that the hearer will make positive adjustments or have a reaction towards this.
Those kinds of actions via utterances for the purpose of communicating are called
“Speech Acts”. In English, they are commonly given such specific labels as
apologizing, complaining, requesting, inviting, informing, complimenting or
promising etc.
2.2.3. 2. The act of complaining
There is already an extensive literature on the speech act of complaining (Kasper,
1981; Brown & Levinson, 1987; Anna Wierzbicka, 1991, 2003; Olshtain &
Weinbach, 1993; Trosborg, 1995; Laforest, 2002, to cite a few). Undeniably,
complaining is considered to be the most frequently occurring communication acts. It
is an action which is not particularly dignified, because it involves something taken to
feeling sorry for one-self. Searle (1976), in his typology of speech acts, distinguishes
between apology and complaint as expressive speech acts, where the former is made
to threaten the addressee's positive face want (Brown & Levinson, 1987). Complaint
has also been classified as a particular speech act - in reaction to a “socially
unacceptable act”- to imply severity or directness (Brown & Levinson, 1987).
It has been further defined as a speech act to give the speaker a way to express
“displeasure, annoyance, blame, censure, threats or reprimand” as a reaction to a past
or on-going action the consequences of which are perceived by the speaker as
affecting him unfavorably. Or, complaining is an act to hold the hearer accountable
8

for the offensive action and possibly suggest/request a repair (Olshtain and Weinbach,
1993)
Trosborg (1995) thinks that the speech act complaint belongs to the category of
expressive functions including moral judgements which express the speaker’s
approval as well as disapproval of the behaviour mentioned in the judgement. She
defines a complaint as an illocutionary act in which the speaker expresses his/her
disapproval, negative feelings etc. towards the state of affairs described in the
proposition and for which he/she holds the hearer responsible, either directly or
indirectly. In other words, a complaint is by its very nature designed to cause offence
and it is, therefore, highly threatening to the social relationship between speaker and
hearer.
According to Boxer (1996), people use complaints:
1. to share a specific negative evaluation, obtain agreement, and establish a common
bond between the speaker and addressee. For example:
- "I can't believe I didn't get an A on this paper. I worked so hard!"
- "Same here. She doesn't give away A's very easily, that's for sure."
2. to vent anger or anxiety/let off steam
3. to open and sustain conversations
The scholar also classifies the speech act of complaints into two types:
1. Direct complaints: are addressed to a complainee who is held responsible for the
offensive action. For example: Could you be a little quieter? I’m trying to sleep
2. Indirect complaints: are given to addressees who are not responsible for the
perceived offense. Indirect complaints often open a conversation and establish

9


solidarity between the speakers. For example: She never cleans up after her. Isn’t that
horrible?
Meanwhile, in the view of Anna Wierbicka (2003), complaining belongs to the same

group with moaning, exclaiming, protesting, objecting, bemoaning, and lamenting.
People often complain to:
1. say that something bad is happening (E.g. I say: something bad is happening to me)
2. express the feeling caused by this (E.g. I feel something bad because of that)
3. appeal for something like pity or sympathy (E.g. I want someone to feel sorry for
me because of that)
Moaning and exclaiming have some differences in comparison with complaining. A
person who is alone might moan or exclaim but he/she would be unlikely to complain
(there would seem to be no point in doing so if there was no one there to hear and feel
sorry for one). Feeling sorry for one-self is important but it is not enough: the
complainer wants to see his/her own self-pity reflected in the pity of the complainee.
The facility conditions of this speech act might be stated as:
1. Preparing condition - X (which is wrong) happens to S.
- H can or S believes that H is able to share with S’s dissatisfaction.
2. Executive condition - S shows his/her dissatisfaction about X.
- H does Y to show his/her pity or sympathy to S’s.
3. Sincerity condition - S believes that his dissatisfaction is reasonable.
4. Fulfilment condition - H will reach Z by doing Y to show his/her pity or sympathy.
- S’s state will be changed in some way.

10


From the above mentioned felicity conditions of complaining, S may perform an FTA
(Face Threatening Act) if:
• H doesn’t or can’t be able to share with S’s problem, or
• S performs the act of complaining without taking into consideration whether H is
able to do something to show his/her pity to S’s expectation, or
• H does understand S’s problem but really does nothing to show his/her sympathy.
In the event that all these conditions are met, the speech act of complaining is said to

be felicitous.
2.2.3.3. Responding to complaints
Dealing with complaints is a kind of complimentary speech act: it follows the act of
complaint. When speakers deal with a complaint, they are performing an act, which is
the act of responding to complaints. This can be a combination of one or more than
one specific acts such as explaining, apologizing, or promising. When making a
complaint, the speaker is displeased, disappointed or maybe depressed. Thus using
appropriate speech acts to please the complainers is very important here. For this
reason, speech acts theory will do a lot in setting up the foundation for this study.
2.2.5. Complaint strategies
Trosborg (1995) outlines four main complaint strategies which are very similar
to those offered by Olshtain and Weinbach. They are no explicit reproach,
expression of annoyance or disapproval, accusation and blame with their sub –
categories.
2.2.4.1. No explicit reproach – Category I
As a complaint is an intrinsically face threatening act, the speaker may use the
hinting strategies to avoid a conflict. This strategy is considered the most indirect

11


since the speaker does not directly say something is bad, and the hearer does not know
whether an offence is referred to or not.
Strategy 1: Hints
1. Don’t see much of you these days, do I? (Trosborg, 1995)
2.2.4.2. Expression of annoyance or disapproval – Category II
When the speaker thinks that the hearer does something bad, he/she can
express his/her annoyance, dislike, disapproval, etc. By doing so in an explicit
way, S implies that H should be responsible, but S does not mention H as the guilty
person.

Strategy 2: Annoyance
2. You promised to give me a diamond ring on my birthday, didn’t you? (my data)
Strategy 3: Ill consequences
3. I have already spar, spa, I’ve already spent ten minutes oh, quarter of an
hour I think it was, cleaning up the bathroom itself. (Trosborg, 1995)
2.2.4.3. Accusation – Category III
Strategy 4: Indirect accusation
S can ask H questions about the situation or assertthat he/she was in some way
connected with the a certain state of affairs he/she considers bad for him/her.
Formulating accusation as a question is less face threatening and more polite to
H, meanwhile S has the opportunity to disclaim responsibility without explicitly
contradicting H.
4. You borrowed my car last night, didn’t you? (Trosborg, 1995)
Strategy 5: Direct accusation
5. Did you happen to bump into my car? (Trosborg, 1995)
2.2.4.4. Blame – Category IV
Strategy 6: Modified blame
S expresses modified disapproval of an action for which the H is responsible.
6. Why don’t you tidy up your room?
12


Strategy 7: Explicit blame (behaviour)
7. How on earth did you manage to be stupid?(Trosborg, 1995)
Strategy 8: Explicit blame (person)
8. Smoke makes me feel uncomfortable.
2.2.5. Directive acts
A directive act may be implied or added, when a complaint is uttered. This
act aims at making H repair the damages he/she causes, and/or preventing a
repetition of the deplorable act. Directive acts are not treated as complaint strategies,

but additional acts.
2.2.5.1. Request for repair
A complaint is made in order to pass moral judgement and imply that H
should do something to repair the damages that he/she brings to S.
E.g. I would highly appriciate if you could repaint the wall.
2.2.5.2. Threat
The speaker issues a threat to state an ultimatum with immediate consequences.
E.g. Hurry up or you’ll miss the begiining of the film.
2.2.5.3. Request for forbearance
In regard to future behaviour, S can make a request which is intended as a
negative reinforcer relative to the subsequent repetition bythe H of the specific
behaviour.
E.g. Well, I’d really like to find out about this because I’m hoping it won’t happen
again. (Trosborg, 1995).
2.2.6. Politeness
In pragmatics, the term “politeness” does not refer to the social rules of behaviour
such as letting people go first through a door, or wiping one’s mouth on the serviette
rather than on the back of one’s hand. It refers to the choices that are made in
language use, the linguistic expressions that give people space and show a friendly
attitude to them.
13


Politeness which is a universal phenomenon in every cultural linguistic community
have attracted a lot of due attention from linguistics as well as sociologists. This is the
reason why politeness principles have been considered to have wide descriptive power
in respect of language use (Lakoff, 1972, 1973), to be major determinants or linguistic
behaviour (Leech, 1983), and to have universal status (Brown and Levinson, 1978,
1987). Their politeness theories are all linked somehow to Grice’s Cooperative
Principle. However, there are some differences across their main approaches. Grice

sets the ideal standard for polite acts to refer, meanwhile Lakoff proposes the
principles of politeness in communication in the form of do’s and don’t’s. Brown and
Levinson’s approach seems to be the most elaborate one in which they specify the
necessary strategies to encounter Face Threatening Acts (FTAs) in communication.
2.2.6.1. Grice’s cooperative principle
The English language philosopher Paul Grice (1967) proposes that in ordinary
conversation, speakers and hearers share a cooperative principle, the content of which
is to “make your conversational contribution such as required, at the stage at which it
occurs, by the accepted purpose or direction of the talk exchange in which you are
engaged”. Grice goes on to describe four categories of special of this principle, which
he calls maxims which are listed here: quantity, quality, relation, and manner.
Maxims of quantity
1. Make your contribution as informative as required.
2. Do not make your contribution more informative than is required.
Maxims of quality
1. Do not say what you believe to be false.
2. Do not say that for which you lack adequate evidence.
Maxim of relation
14