(Luận văn thạc sĩ) a study of politeness strategies in the conversations of the course book inside out (pre intermediate)

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

NGUYỄN THÚY HÒA

A STUDY OF POLITENESS STRATEGIES
IN THE CONVERSATIONS
OF THE COURSE BOOK “INSIDE OUT”
(PRE-INTERMEDIATE)

Nghiên cứu các chiến lược lịch sự trong các bài hội thoại
của giáo trình “Inside Out” (Pre-intermediate)

M.A. MINOR THESIS

FIELD: ENGLISH TEACHING METHODOLOGY
CODE: 60 14 10

HA NOI - 2010


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

NGUYỄN THÚY HÒA

A STUDY OF POLITENESS STRATEGIES
IN THE CONVERSATIONS
OF THE COURSE BOOK “INSIDE OUT”

(PRE-INTERMEDIATE)

Nghiên cứu các chiến lược lịch sự trong các bài hội thoại
của giáo trình “Inside Out” (Pre-intermediate)

M.A. MINOR THESIS

FIELD: ENGLISH TEACHING METHODOLOGY
CODE: 60 14 10
SUPERVISOR: Prof. NGUYỄN QUANG, Ph.D

HA NOI - 2010


TABLE OF CONTENTS

Page:
Part 1. Introduction ............................................................................................ 1
I. Rationale ........................................................................................................... 1
II. Aims of the study ............................................................................................. 1
III Scope of the study ........................................................................................... 2
IV. Methodology .................................................................................................. 2
V. Design of the study .......................................................................................... 2
Part 2. Development ......................................................................................... 4
Chapter I. Theoretical Background ................................................................... 4
I.1. Culture and Communication ........................................................................... 4
I.2. Communicative Competence .......................................................................... 5
I.3. Face and Politeness ........................................................................................ 6
I.3.1. Face defined ................................................................................................ 6
I.3.2. Politeness defined ........................................................................................ 7

I.4. Positive Politeness .......................................................................................... 10
I.4.1 Positive Politeness defined ........................................................................... 10
I.4.2 Positive Politeness strategies ........................................................................ 10
I.5. Negative politeness ........................................................................................ 14
I.5.1 Negative politeness defined .......................................................................... 14
I.5.2 Negative politeness strategies ....................................................................... 15
Chapter II. Positive and negative politeness strategies found in the conversational
activities of the coursebook Inside Out (pre- intermediate).............................. 18
II. 1. Overview of politeness strategies in “Inside Out” (Pre-intermediate) ............ 18
II.2. Frequency of positive, negative and mixed politeness strategies used in “Inside Out”
(Pre-intermediate)................................................................................................. 18
II.2.1. Sampling process ....................................................................................... 18
II. 2.2. Balance of positive, negative and mixed politeness strategies ................... 19
II.2.3. Analysis of positive politeness strategies .................................................. 20
II.2.4. Analysis of negative politeness strategies ………………………………….23
II.3. Positive and negative politeness strategies and S-H relationships ................. 25


II.3.1. Positive politeness strategies and S-H relationships ................................... 26
II.3.2. Negative politeness strategies and S-H relationships .................................. 28
Chapter III. Implications for English Language Teaching .............................. 32
III.1. Implications for teaching politeness strategies .............................................. 32
III.2. Supplementary activities .............................................................................. 33
Part 3. Conclusion ............................................................................................. 39
I. Summary........................................................................................................... 39
II. Limitation ........................................................................................................ 39
III. Suggestions for further research. ..................................................................... 40
References ........................................................................................................... I
Appendix............................................................................................................. III

PART I. INTRODUCTION
I.

Rationale
Linguists and anthropologists have long recognized that the forms and uses of a

given language reflect the cultural values of the society in which the language is spoken.
Linguistic competence alone is not enough for learners of a language to become competent
in that language (Krasner, 1999). Language learners need to be aware, for example, of the
culturally appropriate ways to address people, express gratitude, make requests, and agree
or disagree with someone. Language learners should know that behaviors and intonational
patterns that are appropriate to their own speech community may be perceived differently
by members of the target speech community. Learners have to understand that in order for
communication to be successful, language use must be associated with other culturally
appropriate behavior.
Hence, to be successful in communicating in the target language, learners must be
aware of their own culture and the culture of the target speech community. Especially, they
must understand the hidden and very important parts of the target culture including the
politeness strategies used in everyday conversations.
Inside Out is an English coursebook written by Sue Kay, Vaughan Jones and Philip
Kerr. This coursebook is employed at the Faculty of Information Technology (Thai
Nguyen University) where the thesis author works as a teacher of English.
Fully aware of the benefit of understanding politeness strategies, the author
conducts an investigation into the performance of positive and negative politeness
strategies in conversational activities of the course book Inside Out (Pre-Intermediate)
with the hope of improving the teaching of communicative English.
II.

Aims of the study

The aims of the study are:


-

To study the performance of positive and negative politeness strategies under the
pressure of S-H role relationships in the conversational activities of the coursebook Inside
Out (Pre-Intermediate).

-

To provide suggestions for more effective teaching and learning of positive and
negative politeness strategies.

-

To adapt and design some cross-cultural activities to help students avoid
misinterpretations and misunderstandings in cross-cultural communication.

III.

Scope of the study

This study focuses on the positive and negative politeness strategies in conversational
activities of the coursebook Inside Out (Pre-Intermediate) which, for a long time, has been
in use at the author‟s university. The study also highlights S-H role relationships. Other
components of communication (eg., purpose, setting, time availability …), important
though they obviously are, are beyond the scope of this study.
IV.

Methodology:

The major method employed in this study is the quantitative method with due reference
to the qualitative method since this study sets priority on the practical aspects of crosscultural communication. All considerations and conclusions are largely based on data
analysis. For the theory to be provided, the data to be collected and analyzed, and the
findings to be discovered, the following approaches are resorted to:

V.

-

Critical reading of publications.

-

Discussion with supervisor.

-

Discussion with colleagues.

-

Discussion with students.
Design of the study

This study includes the following three parts:
Part 1 is the introduction which presents the rationale, aims of the study, scope of the
study and methodology.

Part 2 is the development that consists of three chapters.
Chapter 1 discusses the theoretical background of culture and communication,
communicative competence, face and politeness, positive politeness and negative
politeness strategies.
Chapter 2 analyzes the performance of politeness strategies in the conversational activities
of the coursebook (Book 2 - Pre-Intermediate) in terms of the performance and frequency
of positive and negative politeness strategies with S-H role relationships in view.
Chapter 3 offers implications for English language teaching and supplementary activities
for cross-cultural awareness.
Part 3 is the conclusion in which the author summarizes the study, raising limitations and
offering suggestions for further research.


PART 2. DEVELOPMENT
CHAPTER I. THEORETICAL BACKGROUND
I.1. Culture and Communication
The term “culture” refers to the complex collection of knowledge, folklore,
language, rules, rituals, habits, lifestyles, attitudes, beliefs, and customs that link and give a
common identity to a particular group of people at a specific point in time.
According to Phillip K. Bock, culture is regarded “in its broadest sense, as what
makes you a stranger when you are away from home. It includes all those beliefs and
expectations about how people should speak and act, which have become a kind of second
nature to one as a result of social learning. When you are with members of a group who
share your culture, you do not have to 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” (cited from Nguyen Thi Tuyet, 2005:3).
And “culture enables us to communicate with each other since it is a shared
language background (e.g., national, religious) resulting from a common language and

communicative style, customs, beliefs, attitudes, values” (Levine & Adelman, cited from
Nguyen Quang, 1998:3)
The relationship between communication and culture is a very complex and
intimate one. First, cultures are created through communication; that is, communication is
the means of human interaction through which cultural characteristics - whether customs,
roles, rules, rituals, laws, or other patterns - are created and shared. It is not so much that
individuals set out to create a culture when they interact in relationships, groups,
organizations, or societies, but rather that cultures are a natural by-product of social
interaction. In a sense, cultures are the “residue” of social communication. Without
communication and communicative media, it would be impossible to preserve and pass
along cultural characteristics from one place and time to another. Culture is created,
shaped, transmitted, and learned through communication. The reverse is also the case; that
is, communicative practices are largely created, shaped, and transmitted by culture.


This is true with any culture; communication shapes culture, and culture shapes
communication.
Hence, learning to communicate in one new language ought to assist with learning
a new culture.
I.2. Communicative Competence (CC)
Hymes‟s original idea is that speakers of a language have to have more than
grammatical competence in order to be able to communicate effectively in a language; they
also need to know how language is used by members of a speech community to
accomplish their purposes. CC is the knowledge and skills which enable people to use a
language effectively and their ability to actually use this knowledge for communication
(Hymes, 1970). Hymes distinguishes four sectors of CC: knowledge of what is possible,
feasible, appropriate and actually done.
In Saville – Troike‟s opinion, in order to acquire CC, learners needs three
components: linguistic knowledge, interactive skills and cultural knowledge.
Linguistic knowledge includes verbal factors, nonverbal factors, and stereotypes in

specific speech events, possible continuation of variables and the meaning of variables in
specific context.
Interactive skills include awareness of predominant features in context; choice and
interpretation of forms, suitable to specific contexts, roles and relations; norms in
communication and interpretation; communicative strategies to gain oriented targets.
And cultural knowledge includes social structures, values and attitudes, and
acculturalization.
According to Nguyen Quang (1998:13), the components of linguistic knowledge
and interactive skills, almost always convey awareness of cultural knowledge. Thus, it is
assumed that these three factors in CC, particularly in cross-cultural speech, overlap and
affect one another.


That is the reason why “when we teach a language like English to speakers who
already know another language, we must be aware that we have to teach more than sounds,
words and grammatical structures” (Wardhaugh, cited from Nguyen Thi Tuyet, 2005:5).
I.3. Face and politeness
I.3.1. Face defined
When people are involved in conversations, they individually consider certain
variables, whether consciously or sub-consciously, that help them determine the form that
their speech will take. Goffman (1955) calls these variables “face”, and defines it as “ the
positive social value a person effectively claims for himself by the line others assume he
has taken during a particular contact” (Goffman 1955:213)
Brown and Levinson (1987), using Goffman‟s definition of face as a starting point,
propose a comprehensive and, according to Brown and Levinson, universal theory of
politeness. Face is defined as the public self-image that all rational adult members have
when engaged in spoken interactions, and it must be constantly adhered to. They then
divide face into two separate, but related aspects: positive face and negative face.
Positive face refers to "the positive self-image that people have and want to be
appreciated and approved of by at least some people" (Brown and Levinson, 1987 :61). In

other words, positive face is seen as the desire that others like, admire, value or approve of
one's wants (material or non-material), or the need to be accepted and liked by others,
treated as a member of the group, and to know that one's desires are shared by
others(Cutting 2002:45).
Brown and Levinson (1987) define negative face as a "basic claim to territories,
personal preserves, and right to non-distraction - i.e. freedom of action and freedom from
imposition".
The negative face, therefore, "is reflected in the desire not to be impeded or put
upon, to have the freedom to act as one chooses' (Thomas 1995: 169), 'the wants that one's


action be unimpeded by others' (Eelen 2001 : 3) and „the need to be independent, to have
freedom of action, and not to be imposed upon by others‟. (Yule 1996: 61).
In general, participants will co-operate with each other due to the mutual
vulnerability of face. However, it is not possible for conversation to flow without a
demand or intrusion being made on another person's autonomy. Certain illocutionary acts
are liable to damage or threaten another person's face. Brown and Levinson (1987) define
the performance of such utterances as potential face-threatening acts (FTAs). When
confronted with the need to perform an FTA, the speaker needs to decide how it should be
uttered.
Brown and Levinson (1987) argue that the first choice to be made is whether the
FTA should be performed on record or off record. If the on record strategy is chosen, a
speaker can either perform the FTA baldly without redressive action or mitigate the FTA
by uttering it with redressive action. Performing an act without redressive action involves
uttering it in the most “direct, clear, unambiguous way possible” (1987: 69). Conversely,
performing an act with redressive action actually gives face to the addressee, making it
clear that no face threat is intended. This can be achieved by adopting the strategies of
either positive politeness or negative politeness.
I.3.2. Politeness defined
Politeness is one of the most important aspects of human communication: human

beings can only exist in peace together if certain basic conventions of politeness are
observed.
It is widely accepted that Brown and Levinson (1987) produce the most
comprehensive theory of politeness to date, the basis of which is used for analytical
purposes in this thesis. They argue that polite linguistic behavior shows up as a deviation
against the rational and efficient nature of talk, but through a consideration of linguistic
politeness, the hearer finds reasons for the speaker's apparent irrationality or inefficiency.
According to Brown and Levinson (1987), positive politeness is redressive action
directed towards the addressee's positive face, demonstrating that the hearer's wants or


needs are thought of as desirable. In contrast, negative politeness is redressive action
directed to the addressee's negative face, demonstrating the speaker's desire not to impose
upon hearers by restricting their actions.
The off record strategy enables the speaker to avoid the responsibility of
performing an FTA. For doing FTAs, in Brown and Levinson‟s opinion, the politeness
strategies can be grouped into five superstrategies which are given in the chart below (the
higher the number of the strategy, the more polite it is). And, “face”, the public self image that every member want to claim for himself, consisting in two related aspects:
(a)

negative face: the basic claim to territories, personal preserves, right to
non – distraction. E.g. freedom from imposition.

(b)

positive face: the positive consistent self – image or “personality”
(crucially including the desire that this self image be appreciated and
approved of) claimed by interactants.

Figure 1: Circumstances determining choice of strategy (Brown and Levinson,

1978:74)
Highly appreciating this chart, Nguyen Quang (2001) has some comments on its
universality, especially on the sorting members two and three for positive and negative
politeness. Following is his proposed figure:


FTA encounter

4. Do not do the FTA

3. Off record

Do the FTA

On record

2. With redressive action

Positive Politeness

Negative Politeness

1.Without redressive action

Figure 2: Strategies to minimize risk of losing face
(Nguyen Quang, 2001)
Politeness strategies are vitally important in communication and when speakers
employ politeness strategies, especially positive and negative politeness strategies
appropriately, they may obtain success in intracultural and cross-cultural communication.
Therefore, positive and negative politeness strategies are highlighted in this section in

particular and in the whole research in general.


I.4. Positive politeness
I.4.1. Positive politeness defined
According to Brown & Levinson (1987: 101), "positive politeness is redress
directed to the addressee's face, his perennial desire that his wants (or the actions,
acquisitions, values resulting from them) should be thought of as desirable. In positive
politeness the sphere of redress is widened to include the appreciation of another's wants in
general or to the expression of similarity between egos and other wants". Nguyen Quang
(2003) states that "positive politeness is any communicative act (verbal and/or non-verbal)
which is intentionally and appropriately meant to show the speaker‟s concern to the hearer,
thus enhancing the sense of solidarity between them".
I.4.2. Positive politeness strategies (PPS)
According to Brown and Levinson (1987), politeness strategies are developed in
order to save the hearers' "positive face”. Holding that the Vietnamese are more declined to
letting others know that they with to show their concern to others' problems and their
willingness to give help whenever it is needed, Nguyen Quang (2004) suggests seventeen
positive politeness strategies, of which the initial fifteen are adopted originally from
Brown & Levinson. In this section, the author would give her own examples for
illustration. Following are the 17 positive politeness strategies:
Strategy 1: Notice, attend to hearer's interest, wants, needs, and goods, etc.
This generally means that a speaker should pay attention to a listener‟s noticeable
changes, remarkable possessions, and other things that a listener wants a speaker to notice
and approve of.
E.g.: What a green thumb! When did you plant this tree?
Strategy 2: Exaggerate interest, approval, and sympathy with hearer.
This strategy often occurs with many aspects of prosodies, identifying modifiers
and exaggerated intonation, stress, and usually occurs with such adjectives as “marvelous”,

“incredible”, “devastating”, “fantastic”, “extraordinary” and with such adverbs (plus
adjectives) as “really”, “absolutely”, “exactly”, “truly”...
E.g. What a marvelous voice you have!
Strategy 3: Intensify interest to hearer
Speakers wants hearers to share some interest with them. This strategy seems to be
a good way of communicating.
E.g. You‟ll never guess what Tom told me last night.
Strategy 4: Use in - group identity marker
Using an address form which includes the use of the second person plural pronoun
(you), or such generic names and terms of address as honey, darling, babe, mom, dad,
brother, sister, aunt, sweetheart. These forms are used to soften the FTAs. These can occur
in the form of questions, of requests, of imperatives.
E.g. -– How are you doing today, mate?
Strategy 5: Seek agreement
Another way that helps a speaker claim the common ground with a hearer is to seek
agreement between speaker and hearer.
E.g. I agree. Right. Hoang Anh Gia Lai played very well last night, didn‟t they?
Strategy 6: Avoid Disagreement
There are different ways to avoid disagreement between speaker and hearer while
communicating, i.e., using token agreement, pseudo-agreement, white lies, and hedging
opinion.
E.g. Well, in a way, I suppose you‟re sort of right. But look at it like this: …
Strategy 7: Presuppose/ Raise/ Assert Common Ground


This strategy is realized through gossip, small talk, personal centre switch, time
switch, place switch, avoidance of adjustment of reports to hearer's point of view,
presupposition, manipulations, presupposition of knowledge of hearer's wants and
attitudes, presupposition of hearer's values which are the same as speaker's values,

presupposition of familiarity in speaker and hearer relationship, presupposition of
hearer's knowledge. A good illustration of this strategy is the use of "You know...”
E.g. I had a really hard time learning to drive, you know.
Strategy 8: Jokes
"Jokes" seems to be a very effective strategy for communicating if they are used
in the right place, with the right people. Typically, this strategy occurs between people
who know each other well.
E.g.: How about lending me this old heap of junk? (the hearer's new Cadillac)
Strategy 9: Assert or presuppose speaker's knowledge of and concern for
hearer's wants.
This strategy is the way to help a speaker communicate with a hearer by
indicating that speaker and hearer are cooperators and potentially force a hearer to
cooperate with a speaker. This commonly occurs with the use of "I know" from a
speaker.
This is also a very interesting strategy which makes a hearer feel comfortable.
E.g. I know you can't bear parties, but this one will really be good - do come!
Strategy 10: Offers and promises
Speakers want to show that they will help a hearer obtain the hearer's desire or
needs by giving offers and promises which are a natural outcome of choosing this
strategy. Also, a speaker wants to show good intentions towards a hearer's positive face
needs.


E.g. I'll drop by sometime next week
Strategy 11: Be optimistic
Speaker wants to show good intentions of helping a hearer obtain his/her desires by
asking the hearer to cooperate with the speaker in carrying out a tacit commitment. This
means that a speaker not only wants to show good intentions, but also wants both hearer
and speaker to complete an action to carry out this commitment.
E.g. I've come to borrow a cup of flour.

Strategy 12: Include both speaker and hearer in the activity
By using “we”, “us”, “let's” in the process of communication, the speaker shows
that the speaker and the hearer are cooperative, and the speaker wants the hearer to
cooperate with him/her in doing something.
E.g. Let's go, then.
Strategy 13: Give (or ask for reasons)
In Britain, giving or asking for reasons seems to be very common and polite. This
strategy often occurs with such phrases as “why not”, “why don't”, “why shouldn't”.
E.g.: Why don't we go camping?
Strategy 14: Assume or assert reciprocity
Giving evidence of reciprocal rights or obligations between the speaker and the
hearer may claim the existence of cooperation between the speaker and the hearer.
E.g. Mom, if you help me with my math homework, I will clean our house after class
tomorrow.
Strategy 15: Give gifts to hearer (goods, sympathy, understanding, cooperation).
Gifts here are not only material gifts, but also are spiritual gifts.


E.g. I've just been out shopping. Here's a hot dog for you, Sarah. Like it?
Strategy 16: Encourage
By using strategy 16, the speaker implicitly praises the hearer (as if you can do this) tries to
avert the hearer's fear, makes hearers concentrate on positive factors, possibilities...
E.g.: Don't worry. Everything will be OK.
Strategy 17: Ask personal questions.
This strategy seems very much in use in oriental cultures where private expression
may be seen as a sign of trusting each other. People will only tell others about their own
secrets when they trust their contacts. By making others answer personal questions,
speakers may gain much trust from hearers.
E.g. Are you married?
I.5. Negative politeness

I.5.1. Negative politeness defined
According to Brown & Levinson (1987:129), negative politeness refers to
"redressive action addressed to the addressee's negative face: his desire to have his
freedom of action unhindered and his attention unimpeded". Agreeing with Brown &
Levinson, on definition of negative politeness, Nguyen Quang (2003) emphasizes that
"negative politeness is any communicative act (verbal and/or non-verbal) which is
intentionally and appropriately meant to show that the speaker does not want to impinge
upon the addressee's privacy, thus maintaining the sense of distance between them".

I.5.2. Negative politeness strategies
It is believed that there are eleven negative politeness strategies to avoid the FTAs.


Strategy 1: Be conventionally indirect
Speaker uses this strategy when he/she faces opposing tensions which can be
solved by compromise, by conventional indirectness, and by the use of phrases and
sentences that have contextually unambiguous meanings, such as “can you”, “could you”,
“what on earth”, “whatever you do”, “what the hell” “why for God’s sake?”.
E.g.: Could you tell me the time, please?
Strategy 2: Question and hedge
Using question and hedge make a hearer feel less threatened, and more polite. This
strategy derives from the want not to presume and force oneself on a hearer. A hedge can
be a particle, a word, a phrase that modifies the degree of membership, such as “sort of”,
“kind of”, “rather”, “quite”, “technically”, “think”.
E.g. I think Henry is coming.
Strategy 3: Be pessimistic
This strategy is commonly found in redressing a hearer's negative face by the clear
expression of the doubt that the conditions for the appropriateness of a speaker's speech act
obtain. This strategy can be carried out through namely, doing indirect requests with
assertions of felicitous conditions like: “Couldn't possibly”, “by any chance”; or using

subjunctives like: “Could (Would, Might) you please...?”
E.g.: Could you jump over that five foot fence?
Strategy 4 Minimize the imposition
The speaker does not want to impose too much on the hearer, so, the speaker uses
this strategy. By using this strategy, the speaker lets the hearer understand that there is no
imposition or very little imposition on the hearer even whether the hearer could do
something for the speaker or not. This usually occurs with such sentences as “I wonder
if...”, “I just want to ask you if...”, "I am well aware of the trouble when…”, “I know”.
E.g. I just want to ask you if I can borrow your paper.


Strategy 5: Give deference
When using this strategy, the speaker wants to show either he/ she humbles and
abases himself/herself or he/she raises the status of the hearer (by treating the hearer as a
superior). This occurs between a speaker who has lower social status than the hearer and
the hearer who has higher social status than the speaker. Giving deference can be realized
through the use of such phrases as “excuse me”, “sir”, “sorry to bother you but...”,
“please accept my apology”, “sir….”, “I must be excused”, “Miss...”
E.g. Excuse me, sir, but would you mind if I closed the window?
Strategy 6: Apologize
By using this strategy, the speaker wants to show his/her reluctance to threaten the
hearer's negative face and thereby partially redress his/her action. This strategy can be
realized through the use of hesitation and humbleness, and in such ways as to show regret
or reluctance such as “I wouldn't normally ask you but...”, “I don't want to put you in any
sort of trouble but...”, “I am sure that you don't like it but...”, “I hope this doesn't bother
you too much”.
E.g. I'm sorry to bother you.
Strategy 7: Impersonalize speaker and hearer
When using this strategy, the speaker does not want to put any imposition on
the hearer. Therefore, the speaker avoids using the pronouns “I” and “you”. This

strategy is realized by the use of performative verbs and impersonal verbs.
E.g. It's important that you finish the work on time.
Strategy 8: State the FTA as a general rule
E.g.: - Passengers will please refrain from flushing toilets on the train.
Strategy 9: Nominalize


In English, the more nouns used the more polite people are. Therefore,
English people are in more favor of using nouns. So, when we nominalize the subject,
the sentences become more formal.
E.g: Your good performance on the examinations impressed us favorably.
Strategy 10: Go on record as incurring a debt or as not indebting a hearer
The speaker wants to show his/her redress to the hearer by claiming his/her
indebtness to the hearer by means of the following expressions:
- I would be grateful to you…
- I would be greatly indebted to you..
- I could easily do it for you.
- This wouldn't cause me any trouble.
Strategy 11 - Avoid asking personal questions
E.g.: It is cold, isn't it?
Being aware of the importance of positive and negative politeness strategies in
cross - cultural communication, in the next chapter the author will study them through
the conversational activities of the course book "Inside Out" (pre-intermediate) so that
learners can avoid misinterpretation during daily life cross - cultural interactions.


CHAPTER II.
POSITIVE AND NEGATIVE POLITENESS STRATEGIES
IN THE CONVERSATIONAL ACTIVITIES
OF THE COURSEBOOK “INSIDE OUT” (PRE-INTERMEDIATE)

II.1 The overview of politeness strategies in “Inside Out” (Pre-intermediate)
“Inside Out” (Pre-intermediate) was written by Sue Kay, Vaughan Jones and Philip
Kerr and published by Macmillan in 2002. “Inside Out” (Pre-intermediate) is a classroomtested English course designed to develop real life communicative skills and powers of
self-expression. This coursebook provides a thoroughly enjoyable and lively course for
adults and young adults built around structured work on grammar and lexis, planned
speaking tasks and engaging writing and listening texts. The main grammar and language
functions are presented clearly and practiced through anecdotal activities and
personalizations.
People have different points of view about “polite”. What is considered “polite” in one
place or in one country can be “not polite”, and even “impolite” in other places or
countries. In this study, the author puts no value judgment on any interactional behavior,
but takes a deep insight into politeness strategies which are used by native speakers and the
frequency of each strategy; and based on the findings, she would suggest some tips for
using politeness strategies in English.
In the second part of this chapter, the author focuses on analyzing the frequencies of
positive, negative and mixed politeness strategies used in “Inside Out” (Pre-intermediate).
II.2. The frequency of positive, negative and mixed politeness strategies used in
“Inside Out” (Pre-intermediate)
II.2.1. Sampling process
The process of collecting data includes three steps. First, all utterances in conversations
appearing in every unit, especially in the listening tasks, are picked up. After that, all
contexts with S&H role relationships are considered with the help of a group of
Vietnamese teachers of English and some native speakers in order to discover the ones that


are mostly approved of as “natural”. At this stage, 133 utterances have been selected. Then,
all statistics needed for this study are calculated and grouped into 7 categories which are to
be presented in the following parts of the study.
II.2.2. Balance of positive, negative and mixed politeness strategies
Positive politeness strategies

Negative politeness

Mixed politeness

strategies

strategies

Sum

%

Sum

%

Sum

%

96

56.8

53

31.36

20

11.84

Table 1: The statistics of positive, negative and mixed politeness strategies
The statistics are converted into Pie - Chart 1 as follows:

11.8%

31.3%

56.8%

Positive politeness strategies
Negative politeness strategies
mixed politeness strategies

Pie-Chart 1. The frequency of positive, negative and mixed politeness strategies
It is readily observed that the frequency of positive politeness strategies is quite high,
whereas the frequency of negative and mixed strategies is rather low. “Inside Out” (Preintermediate) contains many more positive politeness strategies than negative and mixed
ones. This seems to suggest that the American, in these conversations, are more declined to
positive politeness strategies. They seem to consider positive politeness as a more
appropriate way for the S-H role relationships under study. Similarly, according to Nguyen


Quang (2002), the Vietnamese tend to be more in favour of positive politeness in social
and familial interactions. They wish to show their concern to or for others, and thus,
narrow the distance between S and H. Therefore, this similarity should be observed so that
students can be more confident when engaged in Vietnamese-American cross-cultural
communicative.
II.2.3. Analysis of positive politeness strategies

Based on 17 positive politeness strategies, the utterances in the conversations are
grouped into 17 categories. Following are the positive politeness strategies performed in
the selected conversations:
Positive politeness strategies

Sum

%

1. Notice, attend to H

1

0.86

2. Exaggerate

5

4.31

3. Intensify H's interest

22

18.97

4. Use in - group identity markers

26

22.41

5. Seek agreement

12

10.34

6. Avoid disagreement

5

4.31

7. Presuppose/common ground

16

13.79

8. Jokes

1

0.86

9. Assert S's knowledge and concern for H's wants

1

0.86

10.Offer, promise

6

5.17

11. Be optimistic

3

2.59

12. Include both S & H in the activity

5

4.31

13. Give or ask for reasons

2

1.72

14. Assume or assert reciprocity

1

0.86

15. Give gifts

5

4.31

16. Encourage

4

3.45

17. Ask personal questions

1

0.86

Table
2: Theare
statistics
of positive
strategies
The
statistics
converted
in Chartpoliteness

1 as follows:


25

22.41
18.97

20

13.79
15
10.34
10
4.31

5.17

4.31

5

4.31

4.31 3.45

2.59
0.86 0.86

0.86

1.72

0.86

0.86

0
PPS1 PPS2

PPS3

PPS4

PPS5 PPS6

PPS7 PPS8 PPS9 PPS10 PPS11 PPS12 PPS13 PPS14 PPS15 PPS16 PPS17

Chart 1. The frequency of positive politeness strategies
The chart reveals that strategies 1,8,9,14,17 are the least used and occur at the same
rate (0,86).Whereas, strategies 3,4,5,7 are used most. This seems to show that the
American feel more comfortable using strategies 3,4,5,7. For example:
-

Did you see Mrs. Jones from number 1? She looks very upset this morning.

(Strategy 3 - Unit 5)
This strategy is used when S wants H to share interest with him/her. It can also help
intensify interest for H. In addition, this seems to be a good way to attract H‟s attention.
It is clear that strategy 4 (Use in - group identity markers) is the most preferred

with the highest rate of 22.41%. It appears the most effective in expressing in-group
membership. For example:
-

Pauline, congratulations! (Unit 4)