Ngôn ngữ sử dụng trong các cuộc hội thoại đàm phán kinh doanh trên phương diện các chiến lược lịch sự

VIETNAM NATIONAL UNIVERSITY, HANOI
UNIVERSITY OF LANGUAGES AND INTERNATIONAL STUDIES
FACULTY OF ENGLISH LANGUAGE TEACHER EDUCATION

GRADUATION PAPER

LANGUAGE USED IN
BUSINESS NEGOTIATION CONVERSATIONS
IN TERMS OF POLITENESS STRATEGIES

Supervisor: Asso. Prof. Nguyen Xuan Thom
Student: Dang Thuy Hang
Course: QH2010

HÀ NỘI – NĂM 2014


ĐẠI HỌC QUỐC GIA HÀ NỘI
TRƢỜNG ĐẠI HỌC NGOẠI NGỮ
KHOA SƢ PHẠM TIẾNG ANH

KHỐ LUẬN TỐT NGHIỆP

NGƠN NGỮ SỬ DỤNG TRONG
CÁC CUỘC HỘI THOẠI ĐÀM PHÁN KINH DOANH
TRÊN PHƢƠNG DIỆN CÁC CHIẾN LƢỢC LỊCH SỰ

Giáo viên hƣớng dẫn: PGS. TS. Nguyễn Xuân Thơm
Sinh viên: Đặng Thúy Hằng
Khoá: QH2010

HÀ NỘI – NĂM 2014


STATEMENT OF ACCEPTANCE
I hereby state that I: Đặng Thúy Hằng, class: QH2010.F1.E1, being a candidate
for the degree of Bachelor of Arts (TEFL) accept the requirements of the University
relating to the retention and use of Bachelor‘s Graduation Paper deposited in the
library.
In terms of these conditions, I agree that the origin of my paper deposited in the
library should be accessible for the purposes of study and research, in accordance with
the normal conditions established by the librarian for the care, loan or repr oduction of
the paper.
Đặng Thúy Hằng

Hanoi, May 2014

i


ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS
First, my heartfelt thanks go to my supervisor, Associated Professor Nguyen
Xuan Thom for his clear guidance, endless patience, and steady encouragement. I truly
appreciate his effort and commitment in making this study so illuminating to me. I am
deeply indebted to his never-ending patience and understanding to give me
unwavering support, provide me helpful feedback and encourage me to enjoy this
experience, and be there for me when I needed him.
I wish to express my gratitude to the lecturers of Faculty of English Language
Teacher Education, University of Language and International Studies, Vietnam
National University (FELTE, ULIS, VNU) as well as the whole teachers at ULIS,
VNU for their invaluable knowledge and precious lessons during my four academic

years at this university. Without their support, the results of the study could not be
accomplishedly achieved.
A special note of appreciation goes to my classmates in QH2010.F1.E1 class
for their encouragement, support and comment throughout my project.
Last but not least, I want to express my gratitude to my family, relatives and
friends for their spiritual and material supports and encouragements, which are
important to give me confidence and optimism to complete this study.
It is the first time I have carried out a study at the level of graduation paper. In
spite of my great efforts, the limitations and shortcomings of the paper are unavoidable.
I look forward to receiving helpful comments from the lecturers to further improve my
paper.

I sincerely thank you!
Dang Thuy Hang

ii


ABSTRACT
Politeness strategies are preferably used in most English-speaking contexts.
They are for expressing politeness towards the hearers. Therefore, they are essential in
establishing and maintaining relationship between speakers. Research in second
language suggests that specific politeness strategy is perhaps the most important part
of negotiation process as it lays a foundation for the agreement which is to come. The
objective of this study is to find out the frequency of politeness strategies and that of
tactics within positive and negative strategies.
The data was collected from reliable sources, namely books and trustful
websites. 40 business negotiation conversations were chosen to analyze the politeness
strategies in terms of their number of appearance and percentage by the quantitative
method.

Findings demonstrate the choice of politeness strategies depending on each
specific context, with different relationship between speakers and hearers by the
qualitative method. Overall, this paper is produced in the sincere hope to be
considerably beneficial to negotiators with the positive recommendations to conduct
business negotiations.

iii


TABLE OF CONTENTS

Error! Bookmark not defined.

iv


LISTS OF FIGURES AND TABLES
Figure 1.1. The possible strategies for doing FTAs

11

Table 1.1 Tactics of positive politeness

13

Table 1.2 Tactics of negative politeness

14

Table 3.1 The frequency of politeness strategies used in

28

the business negotiation conversations
Table 3.2 The frequency of tactics in positive politeness

31

strategies used in the business negotiation
conversations
Table 3.3 The frequency of tactics in negative politeness

36

strategies used in the business negotiation
conversations
Figure 3.1 The frequency of politeness strategies used in

28

the business negotiation conversations
Figure 3.2 The frequency of tactics in positive politeness

32

strategies used in the business negotiation
conversations by number of appearance
Figure 3.3 The frequency of tactics in negative politeness
strategies used in the business negotiation
conversations by number of appearance

v

37


PART I: INTRODUCTION
1. Research title
Language used in Business Negotiation Conversations in terms of Politeness
Strategies
2. Statement of the problem
For centuries, the trend toward global integration has developed on a large scale.
This exerts powerful effects on social aspects such as the environment, culture,
political systems, economic development and prosperity, and human physical wellbeing in societies around the world. Among these, economic development and politics
are the central dimensions. Along with this trend, English is conceived by many to be
―the universal symbol of globalization‖ (Sifakis, 2012, p.475). It has permeated all
means of communication worldwide. It is the language of global economy and
commerce, of modern technology and the Internet, the default language of science.
English is also the preferred means of communication between nations around the
world. Besides, together with the spread of globalization, economies experience rapid
expansion, which fosters the unity among countries. Such development of international
trade causes business transactions to proceed. The success of trade transactions
strongly depends on negotiations between enterprises, hence agreements and important
contracts are binding. Obviously, business negotiation is of immense significance.
According to Ghauri and Usunier (2003, p.3), negotiation is ―a basic human
activity.‖ Nowadays, the process is regularly conducted in everyday life to handle
relationships, between friends, a husband and wife, sellers and buyers, etc. In some
cases, the nature of negotiations is not actually essential; however, a large number of
negotiations on international scale, for example, are so serious that it requires careful
preparation and grand plans. In such situations in general and in business in particular,

1


pre-plan plays such an influential role that it ensures the great success of business
deals.
The heart of negotiating table is negotiation conversations between parties. This
is the chance for them to influence, persuade, argue with and find out about their
partners before concluding a long-term contract, for instance. In both international and
domestic business, the clever and skilful use of negotiating skills can help reach
mutually satisfactory agreement, hence professional negotiators have to apply a wide
range of strategies. They include listening attentively, asking follow-up questions,
providing positive feedback, and so on. In different cases, necessary skills to be
utilized are different. Because business negotiation is complicated and often formal,
conversations must be held with well-prepared strategies and knowledge of related
fields, including language and economics.
It is said that skilled negotiators frequently follow politeness strategies as they
determine the

effectiveness of the communication purpose of

negotiation

conversations. These principles are essential in not only the daily conversations but
also the formal ones.
In Vietnam, there is a large number of studies in the area politeness strategies,
such as “A study of language used in business correspondence in terms of speech acts
and politeness strategies” by Thanh (2013), which mentions the types of speech acts
and politeness strategies employed in business letters. Business negotiation
conversations are also examined at a considerable level, for example, ―A study on

linguistic features of business negotiation conversations in English and Vietnamese‖
(Trung, 2013). However, very few studies investigating into business negotiation
conversations in terms of strategies implemented, particularly politeness strategies.
The impact of these strategies is also not carefully considered.
All these conditions, henceforth, offer the researcher a chance to conduct a
study on Language used in Business Negotiation Conversations in Terms of Politeness

2


Strategies in the hope of contribution to this area. Techniques of conventional
politeness are explored in this research. Expectantly, its results may be effectively
utilized for negotiators to gain some certain knowledge to establish and maintain
relationships with their partners.
3. Research aims and research questions
The research is aimed to present, describe and analyze business negotiation
conversations in terms of politeness strategies. To be more specific, the most
prevailing types of politeness strategies are revealed. In addition, the frequency of each
tactic within positive and negative politeness strategies is also explored. Furthermore,
the researcher hopefully suggests some general recommendations to better negotiating
skills in commercial context, namely in business negotiation conversations.
In brief, these objectives can be summarized into two research questions as
follows:
1. What is the frequency of politeness strategies employed in business
negotiation conversations?
2. What is the frequency of each tactic within positive and negative
politeness strategies employed in business negotiation conversations?

4. Significance of the study
Once having been completed, the research would serve as one of the initial

studies on techniques of politeness used in English business negotiation conversations
as well as their effects on the success of business negotiations. Therefore, this paper
might be particularly useful for negotiators and those develop an interest in this topic.
Specifically, negotiators will benefit from the analysis of different politeness
strategies and their impact which others employ to achieve the success of their

3


business negotiations. To whom it may concern, the topic can be dealt with later on a
larger scale and ranges.
5. Scope of the study
In this study, the researcher seeks to find out the frequency of politeness
strategies in terms of politeness strategies in business negotiation conversations.
Investigations into other types of conversation and fields of pragmatics such as speech
acts are beyond the scope.
6. Organization of the research
This paper includes three main parts, namely Introduction, Development and
Conclusion. Part I introduces the research title, discusses the statement of problem,
explains the purpose of the study, and states the research questions.
Part II is divided into three chapters, includi ng Literature review, which reviews
relevant literature related to politeness, speech acts, negotiation and conversation. The
conceptual background which guides this study is also presented. Chapter two,
Methodology, discusses the research design, the instruments, and the methods of data
collection and analysis. Chapter three, Findings and Discussion, presents the results of
both qualitative and qualitative analyses that answer the two research questions of this
study and discusses the research findings.
The final part summarizes the main findings and points out the implication,
limitations and further research.

4


PART II: DEVELOPMENT
CHAPTER 1: LITERATURE REVIEW
1.1.

Notion of politeness
Politeness, as being investigated into in lots of studies, is conceived in many

different ways by theorists. Hill, et al. (1986, p. 349) defines politeness is ―one of the
constraints on human interaction, whose purpose is to consider others' feelings,
establish levels of mutual comfort and promote rapport.‖ Meanwhile, Lakoff and
Robin (1973, p. 910) conceive it as ―what we think is appropriate behaviour in
particular situations in an attempt to achieve and maintain successful social
relationships with others.‖ In their book named Politeness, Brown and Levinson (1987,
p. 13) offer the definition of politeness as ―a complex system for softening face
threats.‖
In daily life, politeness is widely practiced when people talk to each other.
Employing strategies of politeness, individuals may have different purposes, for
instance, to show respect, to win others‘ heart or to ingratiate themselves with their
boss. A simple but perfect example is the use of politeness in a conversation between a
money borrower and a lender. If he would like to receive a large amount of money, the
borrower should use some words showing politeness such as ―Could you‖ or ―please.‖
Therefore, utilizing politeness strategies needs meticulously planning and seriously
considering.

5

1.2.

Politeness theory

1.2.1. Face
As mentioned above, in particular social contexts, politeness strategies are
applied to achieve different aims. This makes theorists examine in detail and
categorize politeness into two groups. In daily talks, there is application of politeness
on positive purposes, that is, to show respect. Besides, negative aims are usually set
when a person desires to flatter others, for example. Consequently, the conception of
face emerges as a convincing demonstration and comprehensive review of interacting
purposes.
Face is the public self image that every adult tries to protect (Brown &
Levinson, 1987). The authors divide it into two types: positive and negative. Positive
face is defined in two ways: as ―the want of every member that his wants be desirable
to at least some others executors‖, or alternately, ―the positive consiste nt self-image or
‗personality‘ (crucially including the desire that this self-image be appreciated and
approved of) claimed by interactants.‖ Also in this book, the authors mention negative
face as ―the want of every competent adult member that his actions be unimpeded by
others.‖
It can be summarized that positive politeness strategies are intended to avoid
causing offence by presenting friendliness with a variety of techniques. Some of them
can be listed as using jokes, tag questions, special discourse markers and in-group
jargon and slang. Meanwhile, negative politeness strategies include questioning,
hedging, and presenting disagreements as opinions. These strategies are to demonstrate
politeness by granting deference in order to avoid causing offence.
Jannoni and Ciarlo (2011) briefly summarize Brown and Levison‘s theory
about the relation between face and politeness:
Another important element in understanding how face and politeness are
connected involves what Brown and Levinson call a face-threatening act (FTA).

6


This occurs in social interactions which intrinsically threaten the face of the
speaker or hearer, such as when one makes a request, disagrees, gives advice, etc.

1.2.2. Grice’s cooperative principle
The English language philosopher Paul Grice (1975, p. 46) 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 (1975) 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

Be relevant.

Maxims of manner

Be perspicuous
1. Avoid obscurity of expression.
2. Avoid ambiguity.
3. Be brief (avoid unnecessary prolixity)
4. Be orderly.

1.2.3. Lakoff and Leech’s theory
Lakoff (1972) asks why it is that it is considered polite for an English-speaking
hostess to offer a guest something to eat with (1a), that if she used (1b) it would be
accounted familiar, and that use of (1c) for the same purpose would be considered
downright rude.

7


1a. You must have some of this fruitcake.
1b. You should have some of this fruitcake.
1c. You may have some of this fruitcake.
After all, on the face of it, (1a) would appear to be more overbearing, and (1c)
less imposing.
Participants in a conversation can choose to be polite; they can choose to avoid
being rude; or they can choose to do as they please conversationally with utter
disregard for other‘s feelings and wishes.
In Lakoff‘s opinion, politeness is ―a system of interpersonal relations designed
to facilitate interaction by minimizing the potential for conflict and confrontation
inherent in all human interchange‖ (Lakoff, 1990, p. 34).
Lakoff (1973b) also describes three different rules a speaker might follow in
choosing to be polite:

Rule 1: Don‘t impose, which is the most formal politeness rule, is appropriate
in situations in which there is acknowledged difference in power and status between
the participants, such as between a student and a dean, or between a factory worker
and the vice – president in charge of personnel. A speaker (S) who is being polite
according to this rule will avoid, or ask permission or apologize for making the
addressee (A) do anything which A does not want to do. This includes acts which
distract A from whatever A may be doing or thinking about when S addresses him or
her.
Rule 2: Offer options, which is a more informal politeness rule, is appropriate
to situations in which the participants have approximately equal status and power, but
are not socially close, for example, the relationship between a businessperson and a
new client in a business, or the relationship between two strangers sharing a
semiprivate room in a hospital. Offering options means expressing oneself in such a
way that one‘s opinion or request can be ignored without being contradicted or
rejected, for example, saying ―I wonder if it would help to get a perm‖ or ―Maybe you

8


should get a perm‖, instead of ―You should get a perm‖. Generally, if S wishes to
persuade A of some view or course of action, S will phrase his speech so that A does
not have to acknowledge S‘s intent.
Rule 3: Encourage feelings of camaraderie, which is for friendly or intimate
politeness, is appropriate to intimates or close friends. Even lovers have to abide by
certain ―politeness‖ norms with each other, or their relationship will come unstuck, as
evidenced by the fact that if a spouse or lover or best friend chose to display formal
politeness behavior, the significant other would interpret it as being given the cold
shoulder, and wonder what had caused the relationship to change. In intimate
politeness, almost any topic of conversation is fair game, assuming that with a close
friend, one should be able to discuss anything.

In contrast to formal politeness, the governing principle here is not only to show
an active interest in the other, by asking personal questions and making personal
remarks, but also to show regard and trust by being open about the details of one‘s
own life, experiences, feelings and the like. Participants use intimate forms of address,
including nicknames and in some contexts, abusive epithets.
As a reaction to the shortcomings of Lakoff‘s rules, Leech (1983) formulates a
more comprehensive framework . He argues that there is a Politeness Principle that
works in conjunction with the Cooperative Principle and identifies six associated
interpersonal politeness maxims basing on the concepts ―cost‖ and ―benefit‖
(1) The Tact maxim: ―minimize the expression of beliefs which imply cost to
other; maximize the expression of beliefs which imply benefit to other‖
(2) The Generosity maxim: ―minimize the expression of benefit to self;
maximize the expression of cost to self‖.
(3) The Approbation maxim: ―'minimize the expression of beliefs which
express dispraise of other; maximize the expression of beliefs which express approval
of other‖.

9


(4) The Modesty maxim: ―minimize the expression of praise of self; maximize
the expression of dispraise of self‖.
(5) The Agreement maxim: ―minimize the expression of disagreement
between self and other; maximize the expression of agreement between self and other‖.
(6) The Sympathy maxim: ―minimize antipathy between self and other;
maximize sympathy between self and other‖.
1.2.4. Brown and Levinson’s theory
Brown and Levinson (1978) provide a slightly different perspective on
politeness phenomena which they have studied in more widely diverse languages and
cultures. They suggest that the origin of politeness phenomena is the same in all

societies. All human beings, in order to enter social relationships with each other, must
acknowledge the ―face‖ of other people.
Interestingly enough, central to their theory is the abstract notion of ―face‖
which is derived from that of Goffman (1955, p. 213) ―face-work‖ (the work of
presenting faces to each other, protecting our own face, and protecting the other‘s
face), and from that of English folk term which ties face up with notions of being
embarrassed or humiliated, and ―losing face‖.
Brown and Levinson assume that all adult competent members of a society
have:
Face, the public self-image that every member (of a society) wants to claim for
himself consisting of two related aspects:
 Negative face: the basic claim to territories, personal preserves, rights to
non-distraction, i.e. to freedom of action and freedom from imposition.
 Positive face: the positive consistent self-image or personality (crucially
including the desire that this self-image be appreciated).
Brown and Levinson also say that:
Face is something that is emotionally invested, and that can be lost, maintained, or
enhanced, and must be constantly attended to in interaction. In general, people

10


cooperate (and assume each other‘s cooperation) in maintaining face in
interaction, such cooperation being based on the mutual vulnerability of face.
That is, normally everyone‘s face depends on everyone else‘s being maintained,
and since people can be expected to defend their faces if threatened, and in
defending their own to threaten others‘ faces, it is in general in every participant‘s
best interest to maintain each other‘s face.

They point out that it is a universal characteristic across cultures that speakers

should respect each others‘ expectation regarding self-image, take account of their
feelings, and avoid Face Threatening Acts (FTAs – acts which threaten the face wants
of the speaker, the hearer, or both of them). They also propose 4 kinds o f FTAs:
(1) Acts threatening to the hearer’s negative face by indicating (potentially)
that the speaker does not intend to avoid impeding hearer‘s freedom of action. E.g.
ordering, suggesting, advising, reminding, threatening, warning, offering, promising,
complimenting
(2) Acts threatening to the hearer’s positive face by indicating (potentially)
that the speaker does not care about the addressee‘s feeling, wants, etc. – that in some
important respect, he does not want hearer‘s wants. E.g. disapproving, co ntempting,
complaining, criticizing, disagreeing, accusing and raising taboo topics
(3) Acts threatening to the speaker’s negative face. E.g. accepting an offer,
accepting thanks, excusing, promising unwillingly
(4) Acts threatening to the speaker’s positi ve face. E.g. apologizing,
accepting compliments, and confessing
Brown and Levinson also outline five macro strategies that speakers can seek to
avoid these above Face Threatening Acts.

Figure 1.1: The possible strategies for doing FTAs

11


From the above figure, it is clear to see that in the context of the mutual
vulnerability of face, the speaker has two choices: he/she may seek to avoid the Face
Threatening Act (Don‘t do the FTA) or decide to Do the FTA.
The speaker goes on record in doing an act A, if his/her statement is directly
addressed to the hearer. Doing an act on record consists of doing it:
- without redressive (baldly) – the most clear, unobscure possible way. E.g. for a
request, saying ―Do X!‖

- or with redressive action – giving ―Face‖ to the hearer to prevent from the face
damage of the FTA with some alterations and additions. Such action takes one of two
forms, relying on which aspect of face (positive or negative) is being emphasized.
Positive politeness is oriented toward the positive face of the hearer, the socalled positive self-image. As the speaker wants at least some of the hearer‘s wants,
the potential face threat of an act is mitigated in this case.
Negative politeness is oriented toward the negative face of the hearer, marked
by self-effacement, formality and restraint. The negative politeness strategies ensure
that the speaker recognizes and respects the hearer‘s negative face wants and will not
violate the hearer‘s freedom of action.
On the contrary, the speaker goes off in doing an act of A, if there is ―more than
one unambiguous attributable intention‖. In other words, the statement that the speaker
makes is indirectly addressed to the hearer, avoiding unequivocal impositions. The

12


choice of this strategy is marked by the employ of metaphor, irony, rhetorical
questions, understatements, tautologies and all kinds of hints.
The authors propose 15 tactics for achieving positive politeness and 10 for
negative strategies as follows:

Table 1.1. Tactics of positive politeness
Tactics

Examples

1. Notice, attend to H: S should take notice ―Goodness you cut your hair! … By the
of aspects of H‘s conditions.
2. Exaggerate: This often done

way I came to borrow some sugar.‖
with ―You are a fantastic cook, the lunch

exaggerated intonation, stress, and other

was great!‖

aspects of prosodic.
3. Intensify interest to H: S intensify the ―I come into his room, and what do you
interest of his own contribution, by ―making think I see? – a huge mess all over the
a good story.‖

place and right in the middle, a
naked….‖

4. Use in-group identity markers: Using any ―Honey, can you give me the beer?‖
of the innumerable ways to convey ingroup membership: address forms, language
or dialect, jargon or slang and ellipses
5. Seek agreement: S seeks ways in which it ―I hate these politicians, they know
is possible to agree with H.

nothing about the small citizen, they
earn….‖

6. Avoid disagreement: The desire to agree ―Have you got friends? - I have friends.
or appear to agree with H leads also to So-called friends. I had friends. Let it

13

mechanisms for pretending to agree: white put me this way.‖
lies and hedges.
7. Presuppose, assert common ground: The ―Isn‘t it a beautiful day?‖
value of S‘s spending time and effort on
being with H, as a mark of friendship or
interest in him, by tal king for a while about
unrelated topics.
8. Joke: Jokes are based on mutual shared ―How about lending me this old heap of
background and values and putting H ―at

junk?‖ (H‘s new cadillac)

ease‖.
9. Show concern for H’s wants: Asserting or ―Look, I know you want me to be good
implying knowledge of H‘s wants and in mathematics, so shouldn‘t I do my
willingness to fit one‘s own wants in with homework now.‖ (instead of cleaning
them.

my room)

10. Offer, promise

―I‘ll try to get it next week!‖

11. Be optimistic: S assumes that H wants ―You‘ll lend me your apartment-key for
for S or for H and S, and will help him to

the weekend, I hope.‖

obtain them.

12. Include both S and H in the activity

―Let‘s have break! Let‘s have a kitkat!‖

13. Give reasons

―Why don‘t we go shopping or to the
cinema?‖

14. Assume or assert reciprocity: S and H ―Yesterday I‘ve washed the dishes, so
may claimed or urged by giving evidence of today it‘s your turn!‖
reciprocal rights or obligations obtaining
between S and H.
15. Give gifts: S may satisfy H‘s positiveface want by actually satisfying some of H‘s
wants (action of gift-giving, not only

14


tangible).

Table 1.2. Tactics of negative politeness
Tactics

Examples

1. Be conventionally indirect: Opposing ―Can you please shut the door?‖
tensions: desire to give H an ―out― by being
indirect, and the desire to go on record
2. Question, hedge: In literature, a ―hedge‖ ―I‘m pretty sure, I‘ve seen that movie

is a particle, word or phrase that modifies before.‖
the degree of membership of a predicate or
noun phrase in a set
3. Be pessimistic: Giving redress to H‘s ―You don‘t have any exotic plants, do
negative face by explicitly expressing doubt

you by any chance?‖

that the conditions for the appropriateness of
S‘s speech act obtain.
4. Minimize the imposition: Defusing the ―Could I have a tiny bit of …?‖
FTA by indicating that Rx, the intrinsic
seriousness of the imposition, is not itself
great
5. Give deference: 2 different possibilities to ―We look forward very much to see you
again.‖

realize the deference:
1.) S humbles and abases himself.
2.) S raises H (pays him positive face of a
particular namely that which satisfies H‘s
want to be treated superior.

6. Apologize: By apologizing for doing an ―I hope this isn‘t going to bother you
FTA, the speaker can indicate his reluctance too much.‖
to impinge on H‘s negative face.

15

7. Impersonalize S and H: Phrasing the FTA ―It would be appreciated if...‖
as if the agent were other than S and the
addressee were other than H.
8. State FTA as a general rule: To dissociate ―Passengers will please refrain from
S and H from the particular imposition in smoking in this room.‖
the FTA (S doesn‘t want to impinge H, but
is merely forced to by circumstances), it can
be

generalized

as

a

social

rule/regulation/obligation.
9. Nominalize: The more you normalize an ―Your
expression, the more you dissociate from it.

good

performance

on

the

examinations impressed us favourably.‖

10. Go on record as incurring a debt or off ―I‘ll never be able to repay you if…‖
record as indebting H: S can redress an
FTA by explicitly claiming his indebtedness
to H, or by disclaiming any indebtedness of
H.

Besides categorizing politeness into two groups including positive and negative
ones, Brown and Levinson (1987) list social factors affecting politeness in interaction,
which are three ―sociological variables‖ that speakers use in choosing the degree of
politeness to use and in calculating the amount of threat to their own face:
(i)

the social distance of the speaker and hearer (D);

(ii)

the relative ―power‖ of the speaker over the hearer (P);

(iii)

the absolute ranking of impositions in the particular culture (R).

Those variables indicate that the greater the distance of relationship between the
speaker and hearer is, the more politeness is expected. The high degree of politeness is
applied if the relative power of the speaker over the hearer is considerable or the
imposition on the hearer is heavy, for example, more time of the hearer required.

16

Because of the specificity of this theory, Brown and Levinson‘s is purposely
chosen as the base on which this study develops. The researcher analyzes politeness
strategies and the reasons for choosing them based on the factors listed in Brown and
Levinson‘s theory.
1.3.

Speech acts

1.3.1. Definition
A speech act is an utterance that serves a function in communication. We
perform speech acts when we offer an apology, greeting, request, complaint, invitation,
compliment, or refusal. Speech acts include real-life interactions and require not only
knowledge of the language but also appropriate use of that language within a given
culture (Center for Advanced Research on Language Acquisition, 2013).
According to Austin (1962), a sentence can be described in terms of the
situation where it is uttered. By means of associated linguistic conventions, the speaker,
with an associated intention, actually performs an act to the hearer, which induces a
certain response from the hearer.
1.3.2. Classification
According to Searle (1969), language is a part of a t heory of action and there
are three different kinds of act:
- Utterance acts consist of the verbal employment of units of expression such as
words and sentences.
- Propositional acts are those matters having to do with referring and predicting.
- Illocutionary acts have to do with the intents of speakers such as stating,
questioning, promising or commanding
Searle (1975) sets up the following classification of illocutionary speech acts:
- Representatives - the speaker is committed to the truth of a proposition:
affirm, believe, conclude, deny, report.

17


- Directives – the speaker tries to get the hearer to do something: ask, challenge,
command, dare, insist, request.
- Commisives: the speaker is committed to a (future) course of action:
guarantee, pledge, promise, swear, vow.
- Expressives – the speaker expresses an attitude about a state of affairs:
apologize, deplore, congratulate, regret, thank, welcome.
- Declarations – the speaker alters the external status or condition of an object
or situation, solely by making the utterance: I baptize you, I resign, I sentence you to
be hanged by the neck until you be dead, I name this ship, etc.
Because of the close relationship between politeness and speech acts, some
authors, such as Quach Quang Trung (2013), include speech acts into their research
when analyzing language used in terms of politeness strategies. However, speech acts
are beyond the scope of this study.
1.4.

Negotiation

1.4.1. Definition
Encarta encyclopedia (1996) (cited in Nguyen Xuan Thom, 2001) defines
negotiation as an action including:
1/ discussing with one or more parties to reach agreements;
2/ arranging modes of exchange through contracts;
3/ transferring ownership by law and in fact, to one or more other parties in
exchange for values received;
4/ completing and remedying successfully shortcomings of the process.
Thus, according to Encarta ‘96, negotiation is a process consisting of many

phases, starting with discussing and ending with fully resolving issues raised. The
process of negotiation only comes to an end until the issues discussed are successfully
resolved.

18