A VIETNAMESE AMERICAN CROSS CULTURAL STUDY OF GIVING COMMENTS ON CONTESTANTS’ PERFORMANCE BY JUDGES IN VIETNAM IDOL AND AMERICAN IDOL

1

VIETNAM NATIONAL UNIVERSITY, HA NOI
UNIVERSITY OF LANGUAGES AND INTERNATIONAL
STUDIES
FACULTY OF POST-GRADUATE STUDIES
--------------- ϑ  ---------------

A VIETNAMESE-AMERICAN CROSS CULTURAL STUDY OF
GIVING COMMENTS ON CONTESTANTS’ PERFORMANCE
BY JUDGES IN VIETNAM IDOL AND AMERICAN IDOL
NGHIÊN CỨU GIAO VĂN HÓA VIỆT – MỸ TRONG CÁCH THỨC
BAN GIÁM KHẢO ĐƯA RA LỜI BÌNH LUẬN VỀ PHẦN TRÌNH
DIỄN CỦA THÍ SINH TRONG HAI CUỘC THI VIETNAM IDOL VÀ
AMERICAN IDOL
M.A. MINOR THESIS
Field: English Linguistics
Code: 60.22.15


2

PART A: INTRODUCTION
I.

RATIONALE

It is of little doubt that language plays a very important role in human’s life. Then,
English, nowadays, has become an international means of communication in our
modern life. However, almost all of people learning English find very difficult to
understand or to convey English native speakers’ ideas or thinking, maybe, because

of the cultural difference between Vietnam and English speaking countries. Besides,
the lack of the learners’ awareness of the target language culture and the cultural
differences is also the source of culture shock in every aspect of cross-cultural
communication. It is the reason why those days, the study of communication and
cross-cultural communication has become an urgent need thanks to the popularity of
mass media and the increasing demand of Communicative Language Teaching
(CLT).

Doing research on communicative acts has, therefore, been of great

significance.
With the development of society, the need of entertainment has been increasing more
rapidly. People seek many ways to relax their mind such as go for holiday, go
camping and so on. However, the simplest way of entertainment is music. Many
music shows and games have been broadcasted on TV attracting the interest of most
of people. Vietnam Idol and American Idol are very famous shows of music
nowadays. Besides selecting an excellent contestant to become the idol of music, the
audience also concern the manner the judges give comments on the performance of
contestants. Thus, Vietnamese – American cross-cultural studies appear useful and
vital in this way.
Commenting is common in many languages and cultures. It is realized by
comforting, showing concern or expressing likes or dislike or reaction, etc. with the
hearer. Cross-cultural study on judges’ commenting on contestants’ performance has
not received much concern form linguistics and researchers. Then, how do
Vietnamese and American judges give comments on contestants’ performance? How
are the two manners different? Which manner is a positive way? This leads the
author to the decision to conduct a research into “A Vietnamese-American cross-


3

cultural study of giving comments on contestants’ performance by judges in
Vietnam and American Idol” to find out the similarities and differences in the
manner of giving comments of Vietnamese and American judges on contestants’
performance. The findings from the study hopefully would be a source of assistance
in understanding between the two cultures American and Vietnamese.
II.

AIMS OF THE STUDY

The aims of the study are:
-

To convey ways which judges give verbal comments on contestants’

performance in Vietnam Idol 2010 and American Idol 2011.
-

To point out the similarities and differences in the manner American and

Vietnamese judges commenting in their target language and culture.
-

To answer the two research questions:

+ Which politeness strategies are used by Vietnamese judges and which ones are
chosen by American judges?
+ Who employs more politeness strategies in verbal communication: Vietnamese
judges and American ones?
-

To contribute to raise cross-cultural awareness in using verbal cues for

foreign language teachers and learners as well as other potential interactants of
international communication.
III.

SCOPE OF THE STUDY

The study is focused on the verbal aspect of the act of giving comments by judges
on contestants’ performance after live show in the two latest shows: Vietnam Idol
2010 and American Idol 2011 basing on the politeness theory by Brown and
Levinson and other linguistics researchers. Because of some limitations, the author
only focuses on the final round: top 4 and top 3 perform.
IV.

METHODOLOGY

This part is focused on a detailed depiction of the methodology applied in the
research paper. More specially, the size and characteristics of the research subject
altogether with research instruments, data collection procedure as well as data
analysis procedure are put into description and justification.
IV.1. Selection of subjects


4

In order to conduct this study, the researcher has employed top 4 and top 3 performs
of Vietnam Idol 2010 and also two ones of American Idol 2011. the research subjects
in this study have been chosen under the procedure of information-oriented

sampling, as opposed to random sampling. In these two performs of American Idol
2011, the researcher has obtained 51 utterances of commenting; meanwhile, she has
got 36 commenting utterances of Vietnam version, which makes a total of 87
utterances. This size of the samples could somehow be considered eligible enough
for the researcher to carry out a reliable study.
IV.2. Research methods
To conduct the study, the researcher has employed two methods namely quantitative
and qualitative ones. The combination of these two methods has offered the
researcher valid data for later analysis.
Regarding the aim of the study, the researcher has found that quantitative is the most
feasible method to deal with the research problems. It is because in the social
sciences, quantitative research refers to the systematic empirical investigation of
quantitative properties and phenomena and their relationships. The objective of
quantitative research is to develop and employ mathematical models, theories and/ or
hypotheses pertaining to phenomena. The process of measurement is central to
quantitative research because it provides the fundamental connection between
empirical observation and mathematical expression of quantitative relationships.
Besides, qualitative research is a method of inquiry employed in many different
academic disciplines, traditionally in the social sciences, but also in market research
and further contexts. Qualitative researcher aims to gather an in-depth understanding
of human behavior and the reasons that govern such behavior. The qualitative
method investigates the why and how of decision-making, not just what, where,
when. Hence, smaller but focused samples are more often needed, rather than large
samples.
IV.3. Data collection procedures
The data collection procedure has been divided into two successive phases.
Phase 1:
This phase has concentrated mainly on collecting 4 shows of American Idol and
another 4 shows of Vietnam Idol. To be more specific, the researcher has spent a lot

5

of time finding then watching 12 Vietnamese episodes and 12 American ones then
collected 4 episodes of each version.
Phase 2:
The researcher has watched then taken notes all the transcripts of the commenting
parts of totally 8 American and Vietnamese shows. Afterwards, she has identified the
strategies of politeness used in every commenting utterance transcripted.
Simultaneously, prominent examples of each strategy have been noted down to
exemplify the researcher’s later analysis.
IV.4. Data analysis procedures
First, the verbal data have been interpreted into subtypes of politeness strategies. As
observed, there are seven strategies that are most commonly used by both
Vietnamese and American judges.
After that, the researcher has calculated the frequency of commentators’ using the
above politeness strategies. This step has been followed by her converting the
frequency into the percentile forms for comparison.
Finally, the researcher has compared the frequencies of politeness strategies used by
Vietnamese judges and American ones.
V.

COMMENTS ON THE INFORMANTS

In the two shows Vietnam Idol and American Idol, there are two groups of
informants. The Vietnamese group consists of 3 informants (one female and two
males), but in the final round, one informant is added. The second group was 3
judges (also one female and two males).
Details of the informants’ parameters are:
-

Vietnamese group:

+ Two females: singer (Siu Black) and editor (Diem Quynh)
+ Two males: director (Quang Dung) and composer (Quoc Trung)
-

American group:

+ One female: singer/actress and record producer Jennifer Lopez
+ Two males: singer-songwriter Steven Tyler and music manager Randy Jackson.
VI.

DESIGN OF THE STUDY

The thesis consists of three parts
Part A: INTRODUCTION


6

This part includes the rationale, aims, scope of the study, methodology and design of
the study.
Part B: DEVELOPMENT
This part is divided into two chapters:
Chapter I: THEORETICAL PRELIMINARIES
In this chapter, theories of culture, cross-culture, culture–shock, language-culture
interrelationship, speech act, and classifications of speech acts, politeness, politeness
principles and politeness strategies, definition of the two shows are critically
discussed.

Chapter II: DATA ANALYSIS AND FINDINGS
In this chapter, the author focuses on analyzing the manner of giving comments of
judges through the two shows with the illustration of video clips (if necessary). The
similarities and differences in the way of giving comments by Vietnamese and
American judges are drawn from detailed and critical analysis of data.
Part C: CONCLUSION
Summary of the major findings and suggestions for further research are mentioned in
this part.


7

PART B: DEVELOPMENT
CHAPTER I: THEORETICAL PRELIMINARIES
I.1. CULTURE
I.1.1. Definition of culture
Culture is often thought of as shared behavior and beliefs, but in any society, all
individuals never think and act exactly the same. Each author has different
definitions of culture.
Levine and Aleman (1993) think culture as
“a shared background (for example national, ethnic, religious) resulting from a
common language and communication style, customs, beliefs, art, music and all
the other products of human thought made by a particular group of people at a
particular time. It also refers to the informal and often hidden patterns of
human interactions, expressions and view points that people in one culture
share.”
Here, it means that culture consists of everything that happens in our daily life. Most
people in a country have same habits or same patterns of thinking or behave
similarly, these are called culture.
Wardhaugh (1992: 217) states that: “A society’s culture consists of whatever it is one

has to know or believe in order to operate in a manner acceptable to its members,
and to do so in any role that they accept for any one of themselves.”
Language and culture always keep changing, consequently, people’s behaviors and
attitudes seem to vary due in time and space.
According to Bock (1970:1),
“Culture, in its broadest sense, is what makes you a stranger when you are
away from home. It includes all beliefs and expectations about how people
should speak and act which have become a kind of second nature to you as a


8

result of social learning. When you are with members of a group who share
your culture, we or you do not have think about it, for you are all viewing the
world in pretty much the same way and you all know, in general terms, what to
expect of one another.”
Culture is always the result of human intervention in the biological processes of
nature. It is the product of socially and historically situated discourse communities,
created and shaped by language. Culture is always changing because culture consists
of learned patterns of behavior and belief. More clearly, language can not occur
alone and is never separated from social activities and its culture.
I.1.2. Language-culture interrelationship
Otto Jespersen (1921) says that “Human language originated while humans were
actually enjoying themselves.” (cited in Karen Risager (2006:3) - Language and
Culture: Global Flows and Local Complexity). It means that language was created
naturally in our daily life, for example when we work; we have to use language to
exchange our ideas or important information.
According to Kramsch (1998:4), “language is the principle means whereby we
conduct our social lives. When it is used in contexts of communication, it is bound
up with culture in multiple and complex ways.”

Language may refer either to the specifically human capacity for acquiring and
using complex systems of communication, or to a specific instance of such a system
of complex communication.
In the “Oxford advanced learner’s Dictionary” (Encyclopedic edition, 1992:506), a
language is considered to be a “system of communicating with other people using
sounds, symbols and words in expressing a meaning, idea or thought.” This
language can be used in many forms, primarily through oral and written
communications as well as using expressions through body language.
Sapir (1921:207) defines that, “Language does not exist apart from culture, that is,
from the socially inherited assemblage of practices and beliefs that determines the
texture of our lives.”(cited in Karen Risager (2006:3) - Language and Culture:
Global Flows and Local Complexity) He considers culture as “what society does
and thinks” and language is “a particular how of thought”.


9

Language and culture always keep changing, consequently, people’s behaviors and
attitudes seem to vary due in time and space. Culture is the result of human
intervention in the biological processes of nature. So culture is always changing as
culture consists of learned patterns of behavior and belief. Meanwhile language can
not occur alone and is never separated from social activities and its culture. It is
widely recognized that the correlation between language and culture is undeniable.

I.1.3 COMMUNICATION AND CROSS CULTURAL COMMUNICATION
Communication is a broad-ranging topic. Everyday we communicate with others in
many ways. Communication can be understood as the exchange and flow of
information and ideas from one person to another; it involves a sender transmitting
an idea, information, or feeling to a receiver (U.S. Army, 1983 cited at
Effective communication

occurs only if the receiver understands the exact information or idea that the sender
intended to transmit.
According to many linguists like Saville Troike (1982:25), speakers must have to
communicate effectively and appropriately. They have to have linguistic knowledge,
interaction skills

and cultural

knowledge. Lustig (1996:28) states

that:

“Communication is a symbolic process in which people create shared meanings.” To
him, symbols play a key role in communication process because they represent the
shared and specific meanings that are communicated. Language and communication
are always changing along with the change of society because communication is
considered as a process in which meanings are created and shared by groups of
people as they participate in the ordinary and everyday activities that form the
context of common interpretations.
Cross-cultural communication referred to as intercultural communication is defined
as
“an exchange of ideas, information between persons from different cultural
backgrounds. There are more problems in cross cultural communication than in
communication between people of the same cultural background. Each
participant may interpret the other’s speech according to his or her own


10

cultural conventions and expectations. If the cultural conventions and

misunderstandings can easily arise, even resulting in a total break down of
communication. This has been shown by research into real life situations, such
as job interviews, doctor-patient encounters and legal communication.”
Richards (1983:92).
This is understood that cross-cultural communication is the exchange and
negotiation of information ideas, feelings and attitudes between individuals who
come from different language and cultures. It is clear that with the process of
globalization, especially the increasing of global trade, different cultures will meet,
conflict, and blend together. People from different culture find it is hard to
communicate not only due to language barrier but also affected by culture styles. As
a result, if the cultural conventions and norms of the interlocutors are widely
different, culture shock or breakdown of communication can easily arise because of
misunderstandings or misinterpretations.
In brief, people of different cultures and countries have different ways of viewing or
interpreting the intention of communication. Therefore, speakers are unable to
understand other’s ideas not because of their limited competence of translation but
due to cultural barriers. Understanding the differences of cultures, communication
and cross-cultural communication enables participants to discover their own culture
and to avoid misinterpretations and then to behave themselves in a different new
world.
I.1.4 CULTURE SHOCK
Culture shock is a term used to describe an anxious feeling when people move to a
strange place and meet with many unexpected situations. Many linguists give the
definitions of this topic.
To Foster, “culture shock is mental illness, and is true of much mental illness, the
victim usually does not know he is affected. He finds that he is irritable, depressed,
and probably annoyed by the lack of attention shown him.”(cited in Understanding
Culture Shock at />

11

It means that when one affects culture shock, he himself is not able to realize this
situation. As culture shock is mental illness, it makes our mind always anxious,
nervous and so on.
Valdes (1995:35) assumes that “culture shock is a common experience for a person
learning a second language in a second culture. Culture shock refers to a
phenomena recognizing from mild irritability to deep psychological panic and
crisis. Culture shock is associated with feeling in the learners of estrangement,
anger, hostility, homesickness and even physical illness.”
It is clear that many people face difficulty or anxiety when in strange and
unexpected situations as Harris and Moran (1998:226) say “culture shock is neither
good or bad, and necessary or unnecessary”.
In brief, culture shock is a common situation belonging to our mind. It is the stress
of moving to a new place and there are no fixed symptoms ascribed to culture shock
as each person is affected differently.
I.1.5 COMMUNICATIVE COMPETENCE
Hymes' original idea was that “speakers of a language have to have more than
grammatical competence in order to be able communicate effectively in a language;
they also need to know how language is used by members of a speech community to
accomplish their purposes.”
Canale and Swain (1980 - Theoretical bases of communicative approaches to
second language teaching and testing. Applied Linguistics 1, 1-47.) defines
communicative competence in terms of three components:
•

grammatical competence: words and rules

•

sociolinguistic competence: appropriateness

•

strategic competence: appropriate use of communication strategies

Sharing the same point of view, Saville Troike (1982) states there are three essential
components of communication. They are linguistic knowledge, interactional skills
and cultural knowledge.
These perspective show the fact that linguistic aspects only are far to be enough for
appropriate use and interpretation of language in a community. Therefore, new


12

methods of foreign language teaching and intensive cross-cultural studies have been
conducted so far would avoid the language learners and cross cultural
communicators from the culture shock and communication breakdown.
I.2 Speech acts
I.2.1 Theories of speech act
Speech act is a term taken from the word of philosophers of language, John
Searle and John Austin in particular who assumes that in saying something a speaker
also does something.
Speech act theory was first formulated by the philosopher John Austin (1962). His
theory of speech acts emerges from his consideration, and rejection, of a distinction
which he sees as central to philosophy of language up to his own work. This is the
distinction between utterances which are meaningful, which are all thought to be
statements of what is or is not the case, and utterances which are meaningless. This
view holds that only statements are ever meaningful. But Austin rejects this pointing
to another class of ordinary utterances which are neither meaningless nor constative
(i.e. of the nature of a statement). He calls such non-constative, meaningful

utterances ‘performatives’ since they are utterances the production of which, given
certain conditions (to be investigated), serves as the performance of some
conventional social act. So instead of the traditional constative/nonsense distinction
Austin in effect postulates two distinctions: constative/performative and meaningfulutterance/meaningless-utterance.
John Austin (1962) defines speech acts as the actions performed in saying
something. When people produce utterances, they often perform actions via those
utterances. These actions are called speech acts; for example: complaint,
compliment, invitation, comment or request. A speech art is part of a speech event.
The speech act can be investigated under three different headings: (1) as meaningful
speech, (2) as speech with a certain conventional force, and (3) as speech with a
certain non-conventional effect. These three related acts are called locutionary act,
illocutionary act and perlocutionary act.
•

Locutionary act is the basic act of producing a meaningful linguistic
expression. The locutionary act is performed with some purposes or function
in mind.


13

•

Illocutionary act is an act performed via the communicative force of an
utterance. In engaging in locutionary acts we also perform illocutionary acts
such as informing, advising, offer, promise, commenting…In uttering a
sentence by virtue of conversational force associated with it.

•

Perlocutionary act is what we bring about or achieve by saying something,
such as convincing, persuading, deterring perlocutionary acts are performed
only on the assumption that the hearer will recognize the effect you
intended.

Of the three above acts, illocutionary act is of the most importance in
communication as an utterance can as it brings about various forces. The
illocutionary act can account as a prediction a promise or a warning. For example,
the utterance “I’ll see you again” can be interpreted as a promise or a warning. That
is the reason why Yules (1997:52) explains that “Speech act is generally interpreted
quite narrowly to mean only the illocutionary force of an utterance.”
According to the two other researchers Schmidt and Richards, “Speech act theory
has to do with the function of languages, so in the broader sense we might say that
speech acts are all the acts we perform through speaking, all things we do when we
speak. The theory of speech acts is partly taxonomic and partly explanatory. It must
systematically classify types of speech acts and the ways in which they can succeed
or fail. It must reckon with the fact that the relationship between the words being
used and the force of their utterance is often oblique.”
The theory of speech act has attracted the interest from a famous linguistics
researcher Blum-Kulka (1989:1) “Speech acts have been claimed by some (Austin,
1962; Searle, 1962, 1975) to operate by universal principles, and claimed by others
to vary in conceptualizations and verbalizations across cultures and languages.
Their modes of performance carry heavy social implications and seem to be ruled
by universal principles of cooperation and politeness (Brown and Levinson, 1978;
Leech, 1993). And yet, cultures have been shown to vary drastically in their
interactional styles, leading to different preferences for modes of speech act
behavior.”


14

Generally speaking, speech acts are acts of communication. To communicate is to
express a certain attitude, and the type of speech act being performed corresponds to
types of attitude being expressed. For example, a statement expresses a belief, an
exclamation expresses a feeling, a request expresses a desire…as a n act of
communication, a speech act succeeds if the audience identifies in accordance with
the speaker’s intention, the attitude being expressed.
I.2.2 Classification of speech acts
Austin (1962:151) divides the illocutionary acts into five major types of
functions to utterances. They are: verdictives (e.g. assess, appraise…), exercitivities
(e.g. command, direct…), commisives (e.g. promise, propose…), behabitives (e.g.
apologise, thank…) and expositives (e.g. accept, agree…)
This classification mainly focuses on how speaker realizes his/her intentions in
speaking, specifically, how much speaker wants hearer to believe in the utterance,
how speaker chooses the words/functions to express the meaning of the utterance,
finally and how speaker utters the sentence and addresses it to hearer on purpose.
Meanwhile, Searle (1976:10-16) pays attention to the way hearer responds to the
utterance intentionally. He classifies speech act into five types:
1. Declaration: changing the state of affairs in the world by utterance, such
as I bet, I resign…(a pronouncement at court)
For example: I hereby pronounce you husband and wife.
2. Representatives: describing states or events in the world (e.g. an
assertion or a report)
For example: It is a sunny day.
3. Commisives: committing the speaker to doing something (e.g. a promise
or a threat)
For example: I promise you that I will come back soon.
4. Expressives: expressing feelings and attitudes about something. They
may be statements of pleasure, pain, likes, joy or sorrow…
For example: It was great!

5. Directives: getting the listener to do something. They are commands,
orders, requests and suggestions


15

For

example:

You

should

go

out

with

her.

Yule (1997:55) summarizes the five general types of speech acts with their key
functions as in the table below:
Speech act types

Direction of fit

S=Speaker X= Situation

Declarations
Representatives
Expressives
Directives

Words change the world
Make words fit the world
Make words fit the world
Make the world fit words

S causes X
S believes X
S feels X
S wants X

Commisives

Make the world fit words

S intends X

Table 1: The five general functions of speech acts (Yule: 1996)
Speech acts may be either direct or indirect speech acts depending on the direct
and indirect relationships between structures and functions.
The two other linguists Saville-Troike (1982) and Yules (1997) analyze speech acts
in terms of directness and indirectness: direct speech act verbs and indirect speech
act verbs.
Saville-Troike (1982:36) points out: “As defined in speech act theory, direct acts
are those where surface form matches interactional function, as “Be quiet!” used as
a command, versus an indirect ‘It’s getting noisy here’ or ‘I can’t hear myself

think’.”

More simply, Yule (1997:554) writes: “Whenever there is a direct

relationship between a structure and a function, we have a direct speech act.
Whenever there is an indirect relationship between a structure and a function, we
have an indirect speech act.”
For example, such a declarative structure as “I will come back soon” can be
realized as a direct speech act if it is used to make a statement, but it can be
categorized as an indirect speech act if speaker means it to be a promise or warning.
I.2.3 Commenting as a speech act
According to Oxford Advanced Learner’s Encyclopedic, “commenting is the
act of expressing an opinion or reaction in speech or writing.”
Giving comment to contestants’ performance is, therefore, defined as the act of
giving an opinion or reaction to the performance of contestants. Here, “give”
literally means “offer” or “share” the understanding or experience of others. In brief,


16

judges’ giving comments to contestants’ performance after their live show does not
only mean the mere verbal words of commenting, but includes the way judges
comment. The What and the How are both strongly emphasized in this act.
For example, American judges comment on contestants’ performance:
Very nicely done!
It was really beautiful.
In the light of speech act, these utterances are regarded as the act of expressing
surprise, and praise. The speaker here would like to give the feeling of happiness
and surprise to the success of the hearer’s performance. This is an expressive act.
Giving comments is also expressed in other acts.

For instance, Vietnamese judges give comments:
I will vote this song.
If I have a prize, I will give to you for your effort to this song.
These utterances are considered as the act of expressing the content or approval
with the performance of contestants in the light of speech act. This is a commisives
act. Here, the speaker makes promise with the hearer to express his approval or
satisfaction with the hearer. By promising something, the speaker offers his personal
credibility in general as a kind of guarantee that he will really perform the action.
When the speaker makes an utterance, he also has an intention in his speech. In term
of commenting, the speaker uses variety acts of expressing his opinion or reaction.
In this research, giving comments is analyzed in terms of verbal stimulus, with
which the utterances are expressed in the two shows: Vietnam Idol and American Idol.
Non-verbal communication, paralinguistic and extra linguistic factors of this act are not
in the focus of the study. Another factor should be considered is that the response of this
stimulus is beyond the scope of the study.
I.3 POLITENESS
I.3.1 Theory of politeness
The term “politeness” means something rather different from our everyday
understanding of it and focuses almost uniquely on polite language in the study of
verbal interaction.
According to Richard J. Watts (2003:9), “politeness is not something we are born
with, but something we have to learn and be socialized into.”


17

The use of language is to carry out social behaviors where mutual face wants are
respected, can be labeled linguistic politeness. Yule (1996) says that, “politeness in an
interaction, can be then defined as the means employed to show awareness of another’s
face.” Culturally, politeness is seen as “the idea of polite social behave or etiquette

within a culture.”
Politeness, as defined by Blum-Kulka (1987:140), is “a function of redressive action
with the latter having correlative relationship with indirectness.”
More clearly, Blum-Kulka states that politeness is “an interaction achieved between two
needs, the need for pragmatics clarity and the need to avoid coerciveness.” Here, by
giving this definition, the author makes an inference that it should be considered
whether there is a direct relationship between indirectness and politeness as to her
“indirectness does not necessarily/always imply politeness.”
Nguyen Quang (2005:18) gives different view of politeness, “Politeness refers to any
communicative act (verbal and/or nonverbal) which is appropriately intended to make
others feel better or less bad.”
Meanwhile, Leech (1983:104) defines politeness as “forms of behavior aimed at
creating and maintaining harmonious interactions.”
Hill et al (1986:349) view politeness as “a complex system for softening facethreatening acts whose purpose is to consider other’s feelings establish levels of mutual
comfort, and promote rapport.”(cited in The Universality of face in Brown and
Levinson’s politeness theory: A Japanese perspective by Peter Longcope at
www.justinecassell.com/discourse09/.../longscope.pdf)
Brown and Levinson, the pioneers in politeness research see politeness as “a complex
system for softening face-threatening acts.”

When we give comments to somebody, we often show our politeness by
expressing our awareness of another person’s face. In this sense, politeness can be
accomplished in situations of social distance and closeness. Showing awareness for
another’s face is often described in terms of friendliness, camaraderie or solidarity.
I.3.2 Politeness principles
From the view of politeness as “a system of interpersonal relations designed to
facilitate interaction by minimizing the potential for conflict and confrontation
inherent in all human interchange”, Lakoff (1975) suggests three politeness rules:
Rule 1: Formality: do not impose/ keep the distance

18

-

Could you possibly…?

There is a difference in power and status between the participants, such as a student
and a dean…This rule will avoid, or ask permission on apologize for making the
addressee to anything which he/she does not want to do.
Rule 2: Hesitation: offer options; let the hearer make his/her own decision
-

I wonder if…

-

I won’t be offended if you don’t want to…

The participants have approximately equal status and power, but are not socially
close such as a business person and a new client. Giving options means expressing
oneself in such a way that one’s opinion or request can be ignored without being
contradicted or rejected.
Rule 3: Camaraderie: make the hearer feel good
-

I highly appreciate your suggestion…

-

If it had not been for your help…

This is friendly or intimate politeness that encourages feelings of camaraderie. It is
appropriate to intimates or close friends.
According to Nguyen Quang (2005), a person’s negative face is the need to be
independent, to have freedom of action, and not be imposed on by others. A face
saving act oriented to a person’s negative face is called negative politeness. A
person’s positive face is the need to be accepted by others, to be treated as a member
of the same group. A face saving act concerned with a person’s positive face is
called positive politeness.
Another researcher, Leech (1983:132) gives a politeness principles consisting of six
maxims. They are as follow:
•

Tact maxim: minimize cost to other. Maximize benefit to other.

•

Generosity maxim: Minimize benefit to self. Maximize dispraise of self.

•

Approbation maxim: Minimize dispraise of other. Maximize dispraise of
self.

•

Modesty maxim: Minimize praise of self. Maximize praise of other.

•

Agreement maxim: Minimize disagreement between self and other.
Maximize agreement between self and other.


19

•

Sympathy maxim: Minimize antipathy between self and other. Maximize
sympathy between self and other.

Of all the maxims, Tact maxim is considered the most important kind of politeness
in English-speaking countries. He says that his model could be applied universally
across cultures. But in fact, it can be best applied to English culture where social
distance is given higher value, especially in formal situations. But it is unsuitable for
all situations and societies where social intimacy is highly valued.
Brown and Levinson (1978) do not give a rule of politeness principles but set a
schema of four components of communicative choices:
-

without redressive action, baldly

-

positive politeness

-

negative politeness

-

off record

in which the way they number the choice decides the level of politeness: the greater
FTA the more polite strategy employed, thus the higher number chosen in the
1. Without redressive action
following figure
badly
2.Positive

On record
Lesser

With
Do the

redressive

action

FTA

politeness
3.Negativ
e

5. Don’t the
Greaterr

FTA

4.

Off-

politeness

record
Figure 2: Strategies for doing the FTAs (Brown and Levinson, 1978:65)

On record: a speaker can potentially get any of the following advantages, he
can enlist public pressure against the addressee or in support of himself.
Bald-on-record: efficiency (speaker can claim that other things are more
important than face, or that the act is not a FTA at all.)


20

Off record: on the other hand, a speaker can profit in the following ways, he
can get credit for being tactful, non-coercive, he can run less risk of his act entering
the gossip biography that others keep of him, and he can avoid responsibility for the
potentially face-damaging interpretation.
Positive politeness: a speaker can minimize the face-threatening upsets of an act
by assuring the addressee that speaker considers himself to be of the same kind.
Negative politeness: a speaker can benefit in the following ways, he can pay
respect, deference to the addressee in return for the FTA, and can thereby avoid
incurring.
Brown and Levinson’s schemata assume that every individual has two types of face:

positive and negative. Positive face is defined as the individual desire that her/his
wants to be appreciated and approved of in social interaction, whereas negative face
is the desire for freedom of action and freedom from imposition.
According to Nguyen Quang (2005:25), the schemata should be changed in the following
ways:
FTA encounter

4. Do not do the FTA

Do the FTA
2. With redressive action
Positive

Negative

On record
politeness
politeness
1. Without redressive action
Figure 3: Nguyen Quang’s schemata of possible strategies for doing the FTAs
In brief, when communicating or producing utterances, we might have a
negative impact on partner’s face. Then, besides off-record, individuals can choose
positive or negative politeness to avoid communicating partner’s discomfort.
I.3.3 POLITENESS STRATEGIES
I.3.3.1 Positive politeness strategies


21

The notion of positive politeness strategy attracts from various researchers in the

related fields.
Brown and Levinson assume that positive politeness is redress directed to the
addressee’s positive face, his perennial desire that his wants (or the
actions/acquisitions/value resulting from them) should be thought of as desirable.
Positive politeness strategies are those that are used to satisfy positive face.
According to Nguyen Quang (2005: 27), “Positive politeness is any communicative
act (verbal and or nonverbal) which is appropriately intended to show the speaker’s
concern to the addressee, thus, enhancing the sense of solidarity between them.”
What is the major contribution of Nguyen Quang’s definition to intracultural and
cross-cultural communication is his implicit suggestions of the sensitiveness and
appropriateness employed by those who wish to know each other well, or those who
would like to be polite to others by using verbal or nonverbal language in a solidary
semantic and cultural way. Positive politeness is realized in three main mechanisms:
•

Claim common ground

•

Display the sense of cooperation

• Satisfy hearer’s wants
More details:
•

Mechanism 1: Claim common ground
 Strategy 1: Notice/attend to H (interest, wants, needs…)

When communicating, S cares for H’s wants or needs:
For example:

You must be thirsty. What about some drink?
 Strategy 2: Exaggerate (interest, approval, sympathy with H)
It is the way S shows his/her concern by expressing that he/she is really interested in
H’s news.
I am really honored!
 Strategy 3: Intensify interest to the hearer in the speaker’s contribution
S communicates with H, he shares some of his wants to intensify the interest of his
own contributions to the conversation.
 Strategy 4: Use in-group identity markers in speech


22

Some ways of address forms can be used flexibly and effectively in this strategy.
I will lend you $1,000. Take it easy.
 Strategy 5: Seek agreement
In this strategy, S stresses his/her agreement with H, therefore, satisfies H’s desire to
be “right”, or to be corroborated in his opinions. There are 4 different policies in
order to reach agreement between S and H: using safe topics, using minimal
encouragers, repeating and agreeing.
I will go there with you if you would like.
 Strategy 6: Avoid disagreement
In communication, Brown and Levinson suggest 4 policies: token agreements, white
lies, pseudo-agreement, and hedging opinions.
A: What is she, small?
B: "Yes, yes, she's small, smallish, not really small but certainly not very
big."
 Strategy 7: Presuppose, raise, and assert common ground.
There are 3 policies in this strategy: small talk, deixis inversion and presupposition
manipulations.

We both are hungry now. Let’s have dinner.
Strategy 8: Joke to put hearer at ease
Making jokes is considered to be one of the helpful way to communicate between S
and H.S can share background knowledge, values, goals and sensitivity to H.
Wow, that’s a whopper!
•

Mechanism 2: Display the sense of cooperation
 Strategy 9: Assert or presuppose knowledge of and concern for hearer’s
wants

This strategy indicates that S and H are cooperations of and thus potentially to put
pressure on H to cooperate with S, is to assert or imply knowledge of H’s wants and
willingness to fit one’s own wants in with them.
I know you can not bear parties, but this one will really be good-do come.


Strategy 10: Offer, promise.


23

This strategy is used to gain the solidarity or cooperation between S and H, S often
offer or promise to do something in order to satisfy for H.
I promise it will not happen again.


Strategy 11: Be optimistic.

This strategy shows that S tries to establish a close or intimate relationship between

S and H.
I believe you will pass the exam.


Strategy 12: Include both S and H in the activity.

By using an inclusive “we” form, when S really means “you” or “me”, he can upon
the cooperative assumptions and thereby redress FTAs. Noting that “let’s” in English
is an inclusive “we” form.
What about going out for dinner?


Strategy 13: Give or ask for reasons.

Giving or asking for reasons is one way that S shows his/her concern towards H
Why don’t you tell the truth to me?


Strategy 14: Assert reciprocal exchange.

The existence of cooperation between S and H may also be claimed or urged by
giving evidence of reciprocal rights or obligations obtaining between S and H.
I will go out with you if you promise not to tell this to anyone.
Mechanism 3: Satisfy H’s wants


Strategy 15: Give gifts to H (good, sympathy, understanding, cooperation)

S may satisfy H’s positive face wants by actually satisfying some of H’s wants. S
can give gifts or share the sadness or happiness to H.

I’ve just shopped this cake for you. Enjoy it?


Strategy 16: Console and encourage

In this strategy, S expresses his/her concern and good will to H.
Keep calm! I believe you will pass the exam easily.


Strategy 17: Ask personal questions

People from negative politeness-oriented culture may get shocked when they meet
the first time asks such personal questions as:
How old are you?


24

How much do you get each month?
Are you married?
I.3.3.2 Negative politeness strategies
According to Nguyen Quang (2005:30), negative politeness “is any communication
act (verbal/or non verbal) which is appropriately intended to show that the speaker
does not want to impinge on the addressee’s privacy, thus enhancing the sense of
distance between them.”
There are five main mechanisms in negative politeness, which consist 11 strategies;
• Mechanism 1: Be indirect


Strategy 1: Be conventionally indirect

This strategy solves a dilemma; in other words it satisfies two different
communicative points at the same time.
Assuring on-record the obvious illocutionary force.
Expressing off-record the speaker’s reluctance to produce it.
I'm looking for a comb.


Strategy 2: Question, hedge.

Brown and Levinson (1987:90) points out: “A hedge is a particle, word, or phrase
that modifies the degree of membership of a predicate or now phrase in a set, it says
of that membership that is partial, or true only in certain respects, or that it is more
true and complete than perhaps might be expected.
Grice (1975) classifies hedges based on the four principles: quantity, quality, relation
and manner.
If you do not mind, we will go to the cinema another time.


Strategy 3: Be pessimistic

When S maintains a distance from his/her communicative partner and minimize the
imposition of utterances as well as avoiding imposition on H.
According to Nguyen Quang (2003:150,159,160,161), there are three main substrategies: using hypothesis, using down toners, using negative form.
I wonder whether you will forgive me or not?


Strategy 4: Minimizing the imposition

This strategy seeks to minimize the R factor in P-D-R paradigm.

25

I wonder if you could finish this assignment for me?


Strategy 5: Give deference.

The social hierarchy and power are two important factors in this strategy.
I’m sorry, professor, for not completing my homework.


Strategy 6: Apologise.

In this strategy, the speaker can indicate his reluctance to impinge on H’s negative
face and thereby partially redress that impingement. There are 2 main sub-strategies:
-

Apologising directly: express direct way by such words as “sorry”,
“apologize”.

-

Apologizing indirectly:

+ admitting trouble
+ expressing reluctance
+ basing and complaining about self
+ raising unavoidable reasons

+ hoping and promising
I am sorry for being late.


Strategy 7: Impersonalize S and H. Avoid the pronoun I and You

Using this strategy, S does not want to impinge on H. both S and H avoid
mentioning in communication. Thus, S can lower S’s power and reduce the
imposition of the act as well as minimizing the threat over H.
There are 5 sub-strategies in this strategy:
-

Avoiding performative verb

-

Using imperatives

-

Using passive voice

-

Using indefinite pronouns instead of “I” and “you”

-

Using impersonalized subject
Enjoy it.



Strategy 8: State the FTA as instance of a general rule.

This strategy is served many aims, S can give requests, advice, orders as general
rules for a group of H and distances S and H through cool and distant utterances.
I am going to fine you because you did not stop when the light is red.