Politeness strategies manifested in conversations in the quiet america = chiến dịch lịch sử thể hiện qua lời hội thoại trong tác phẩm người mỹ trầm lặng

1

Acknowledgement

This study would have never been finished without the support of my
dedicate teachers, friends and family members.

First of all, I would like to express my deep gratitude to my supervisor,
Dr. Ngô Đình Ph¬ng, who has given me detailed instructions, valuable advice
and critical comments during my researching process.

I am indebted to my teachers in the Faculty of Foreign Languages,
especially Mr. Trần Bá Tiến, who have provided me with many useful
references. I would also like to say thank-you to Ms Mindy Schout and Ms
Sandy Gannon who have helped me edit my writing.

Last but not least, my sincere gratefulness goes to my family and my
friends whose love and encouragement have contributed to the completeness
of the thesis.

Vinh, May 15, 2005

Đặng Thị Mạnh

politeness strategies manifested in conversations in “the quiet American”

FTA : 2
H :
S : Abbreviations
D :
P : Face Threatening Act

R : Hearer/Addressee
e.g. : Speaker/Addresser
i.e. : Distance
et. al. : Relative power
Absolute ranking of imposition
For example
That is to say
and others

politeness strategies manifested in conversations in “the quiet American”

3

Table of contents

1. Acknowledgement . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Page
2. Abbreviations. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . i
3. Abstract . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ii
4. Part A: Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . vi
5. Rationale. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1
Aims of the study. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1
1.1 Scope of the stud . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2
1.1.1 Methods of the study . . . . . . .. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2
1.1.2 Design of the study . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3
1.1.3 Part B: Development. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3
1.2 Chapter 1: Theoretical background. . .. . . . . . . . . . 4
1.2.1 Speech acts. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4
1.2.2 Definition of speech act. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4
1.2.2.1 Locutionary, illocutionnary and perlocutionary . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5
1.2.2.2 Classification of speech acts . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5

1.2.3 Politeness. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. . . . . . . . . . . 6
1.2.3.1 What is politeness? . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8
1.2.3.2 The conversational-maxim view on politeness. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8
1.2.3.3 Politeness rules. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. . . . . . . . . . . . 9
1.2.3.3.1 Politeness maxims. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9
1.2.3.3.2 The face-management view on politeness. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
1.2.3.4 Face. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10
Face threatening acts. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 15
2.1 Politeness strategies. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 15
Positive politeness strategies. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 16
2.1.1 Negative politeness strategies. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 17
2.1.2 Social factors affecting politeness. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 18
2.1.3 Chapter 2: Politeness strategies manifested 19
2.1.4 20
2.1.5 in conversations in “The Quiet American” . . . . . . .
2.1.6 22
2.1.7 Positive politeness strategies manifested in “The QuiThe Quiet 22
2.1.8
2.1.9 American” 22
Strategy 1: Notice, attend to H (his interests, wants, needs, goods) 23
2.1.10 Strategy 2: Exaggerate (interest, approval, sympathy with H) 23
2.1.11 Strategy 3: Intensify interest to H. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 24
2.1.12 Strategy 4: Use in-group identity markers. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 25
2.1.13 Strategy 5: Seek agreement. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 25
2.1.14 Strategy 6: Avoid disagreement. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 26
Strategy 7: Presuppose / raise / assert common ground. . . . . . . . . . . 27
Strategy 8: Joke. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
Strategy 9: Assert or presuppose S’s knowledge of and concern for 28
28
H’s wants. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 28

Strategy 10: Offer, promise. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 29
Strategy 11: Be optimistic. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 29
Strategy 12: Include both S and H in the activity. . . . . . . . .. . . . . . . 29
Strategy 13: Give (or ask for) reasons. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
Strategy 14: Assume or assert reciprocity. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

politeness strategies manifested in conversations in “the quiet American”

4

2.1.15 Strategy 15: Give gifts to H (goods, sympathy, understanding,

cooperation) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 30
2.1.16 Strategy 16: Encourage. . .. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 30

2.1.17 Strategy 17: Ask personal questions. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 30
30
2.2 Negative politeness strategies manifested in “The QuiThe Quiet

American”
2.2.1 Strategy 1: Be conventionally indirect. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 30

2.2.2 Strategy 2: Question, hedge. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 31
2.2.3 Strategy 3: Be pessimistic. . . . . . . . . . .. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 32

2.2.4 Strategy 4: Minimize the imposition. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 33
2.2.5 Strategy 5: Give deference. . . . . . . . . .. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 33

2.2.6 Strategy 6: Apologize. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 34
2.2.7 Strategy 7: Impersonalise S and H. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 34

2.2.8 Strategy 8: State the FTA as a general rule. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 36
2.2.9 Strategy 9: Nominalize. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 36

2.2.10 Strategy 10: Go on record as incurring a debt, or as not indebting H 36

2.3 Politeness strategies manifested in "The Quiet American" seen

from S-H relationship. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 37
2.3.1 Lovers. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 39
2.3.2 Friends. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 39
2.3.3 Wife – husband. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 39

.
2.3.4 Acquaintances. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 40
2.3.5 Strangers. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 40

Chapter 3: Application. .. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 42
Part C: Conclusion. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 46
References
Appendix

politeness strategies manifested in conversations in “the quiet American”

5

Abstract

The study is aimed at investigating how politeness strategies manifested
in conversations in the novel "The Quiet American". It is compiled of three

main chapters. Chapter 1 reviews the major theories on politeness: Lakoff’s
politeness rules, Leech’s politeness maxims and Brown & Levinson’s
politeness strategies. Chapter 2, which is based on Brown & Levinson’s
framework, investigates the politeness employed by the characters of "The
Quiet American". The research findings are discussed in two sections. The
first section deals with the manifestation of each strategy. The result shows
that characters of this novel mainly resort to positive politeness. The second
section is concerned with the variation of the proportion between positive and
negative politeness depending on social relationship. It attempts to provide
possible explanation to the proportion in each case. Chapter 3 suggests some
possible ways to apply the study into language teaching. The exercise given
here will help to raise learner’s awareness of social and cultural elements in
real communication in English. This thesis can serve as a start for some
further study.

politeness strategies manifested in conversations in “the quiet American”

6

Part a: Introduction
1. Rationale
1.1 Language is the primary means of communication. It is used as a vehicle
to transfer information, ideas, opinions and emotions. However,
communication is not only an exchange of information, but also the
sustainibility of a society. Thus, communicative competence makes up a
larger notion than language competence. In mentioning communicative
competence, Saville-Troike (1986:25) states that it involves three different
aspects: linguistic knowledge, interactional skill, and cultural knowledge
(cited in Le Thi Thuy Ha 2003 – MA Thesis).

Hymes (1972) proposes that a speaker’s communicative competence
should be the object of linguistic enquiry (cited in Carl James 1980:100).
Learning a language cannot be separated from the practice of interactional
skill and the acquisition of cultural knowledge, since language choice as well
as the interpretation of language forms vary significantly depending on
cultural and social contexts. Vietnamese learners of English must know how
to use English under the norms of English-speaking cultures. In other words,
people who only master the English languge codes will definitely fail in real
communication using English. Communication is only successful when a
speaker is aware of what to say to whom and how to say it appropriately.
Therefore, in any language courses, teaching and learning about language
choice is as important as learning about language forms. One of the most
important factors that determine the choice of language is politeness. “The QuiWhen
learning a second language, one needs to acquire the new culture’s politeness
framework, which often is very different from that of one’s own culture”
(Celce-Murcia et al 2000:26). If politeness is studied in more detail, the more
useful to language teaching and learning it will become.

Politeness manifests itself in all forms of conversation: everyday
conversations and conversations made by characters of literary/art works. The
manifestation of politeness in the former form of conversation has been
largely discussed so far, yet in the latter form, it is still left as an open
question. This fact gives us the inspiration to work on how politeness is used
in conversations in literary works.

politeness strategies manifested in conversations in “the quiet American”

7

1.2 Literature has long been considered as a reflection of society and culture.

Language in literature changes remarkably depending on not only
geographical, but also historical variations. Thus, language choice in a
classical novel is always different from that in a modern one. Politeness forms
used by classical characters are, therefore, definitely different from those used
by modern characters. In modern novels, the way the characters communicate
has much in common with what we say in everyday life. So the study of
politeness forms in modern novels is particularly useful for teaching and
learning languages.

For all of the above reasons, we choose “The QuiPoliteness strategies
manifested in conversations in “The QuiThe Quiet American” to be the theme of this
thesis.
2. Aims of the study

The aims of this thesis are:
- To emphasize the importance of politeness in human communication,

especially in cross-cultural communication.
- To study the utilities of positive and negative strategies in converstions

between characters of an English literary work.
- To provide/suggest practical implications of politeness strategies in

teaching and learning English.
3. Scope of the study

Of all aspects of politeness, the study only deal with verbal ones.
Paralinguistic and non-verbal factors are not discussed in here.

This thesis focuses on positive and negative politeness strategies based

on Brown & Levinson’s (1987) theoretical framework. Off-record politeness
strategies, politeness rules and politeness principles are beyond the scope of
the thesis.

The data analysis is based on utterances in conversations between
characters in “The QuiThe Quiet American” – a modern novel by the English
novelist Graham Greene. This novel was written in 1952 and is set in
Vietnam. It tells the story of a British journalist called Thomas Fowler and an
American named Pyle who is known as an officer of the Economic Aid
Mission. Both of them work in Saigon and are in love with the same

politeness strategies manifested in conversations in “the quiet American”

8

Vietnamese girl – Phuong. The spinal plot of the novel is the struggle of the
two men to win Phuong’s heart. In parallel, it reveals who Pyle truly is and
describes Fowler’s inner struggle to choose a ‘side’ of the war to support.
Apart from that, the novel also gives us a vivid image of the south of Vietnam,
especially Saigon in the 1950s – a vivid picture of social as well as people’s
mental life. Conversations among characters of this novel reflect their inner
feelings and their cultural background so well that they can serve as a reliable
source of data for linguistic analysis in general, and politeness study in
particular.

Most of the examples given in chapter 2 this thesis are taken from this
novel, and reference is made when they are taken from other sources.
4. Methods of the study

- Revision of theoretical publications.

- Quantative method.
- Analysis of collected data.
5. Design of the study

The thesis comprises of three main parts:
Part A: Introduction

This part discusses the rationale, aims, scope, methods and design of
the study.
Part B: Development

This part is subdevided into three chapters:
Chapter 1: Theoretical background
Chapter 2: Politeness strategies manifested in conversations in “The QuiThe
Quiet American”
Chapter 3:Applications
Part C: Conclusion
This part reviews major findings of the study and suggests some
directions for further works.

politeness strategies manifested in conversations in “the quiet American”

9

part B: Development

Chapter 1: THEORETICAL BACKGROUND
1.1. Speech acts

Since the early twentieth century, Oxford-based philosophers have

observed the relationship between philosophy and language following two
different trends. One trend, followed by Moore, was to look at the “The Quilanguage
of common sense”. The other trend, followed by Bertrand Russell and others,
was to view that everyday language “The Quiis somehow deficient or defective”. They
claimed that it is rather debased, ambiguous, imprecise and contradictory; and
they aimed at refining the language by removing its imperfections and
illogicalities so as to create an ideal language.

In response to this, Austin (1962) observed that ordinary people can
communicate effectively and fluently with language just the way it is. We
should not give any effort to deprive the language of its imperfections or
flaws; instead, we should try to understand how people could manage to make
full and effective use of ordinary language.

This reaction of Austin was the inspiration for him to develop the
speech act theory, which was fully discussed and presented in the series of
lectures that he gave at Oxford University between 1952 and 1954. These
lectures were later collected and compiled into the famous book “The QuiHow to Do
Things with Words” (1962). In the speech act theory, Austin studies what
kinds of things we do when we speak, how we do them and how our acts
“The Quisucceed” or “The Quifail”. He first explored his idea as the “The Quiperformative
hypothesis”.

Before the performative hypothesis was proposed, linguists believed
that people’s utterances were always either true or false. The approach they
followed was called the “The Quitruth-conditional approach”. Austin took another
view and considered “The Quiwords as actions”. According to him, most utterances
have no truth-condition; there are no statements or questions but only actions.
He made a clear distinction between constative and performative. Constative
means an utterance can be judged as either true or false, for example, the

sentence “The QuiHe is wearing a red shirt” is true if the color of the shirt that “The Quihe” is
wearing is red, but it is false if the shirt is of a different color. Performatives,

politeness strategies manifested in conversations in “the quiet American”

10

however, cannot be judged in the same way. Let us consider the sentence:
“The QuiWill you marry me?” We cannot say whether this sentence is true or false,
yet it should be best interpreted as the performance of an action - the action of
proposing marriage.

So far, we have made it clear that people do not use language just to
make propositions about the world. They also use language to perform actions
that may, in some way, change the world. The actions may be performed via
language explicitly or implicitly. The former way creates explicit
performatives, whereas the latter creates implicit performatives.

1.1.1 Definition of speech act

Originally, Austin (1962) claimed: “The Quiwe must consider the total
situation in which the utterance is issued – the total speech-act – if we are
to see the parallel between statements and performative utterances”
(1962:52). Later, G. Yule (1996) termed this total situation “The Quispeech event”
and simply defined speech act as follows: “The QuiActions performed via utterances
are generally called speech acts and, in English, are commonly given more
specific labels such as apology, complaint, compliment, invitation, promise,
or request”.

Today, the term speech act can be used interchangeably with

illocutionary act. The notion of illocutionary acts will be discussed in the
next part of this study.

1.1.2 Locutionary, illocutionary and perlocutionary acts

The action performed via an utterance always consists of 3 related acts:
locutionary, illocutionary and perlocutionary acts. Locutionary act is the basis
of utterance, the act of producing a meaningful linguistic expression. People
who are unable to form sounds and words to create a meaningful expression in
a language (e.g., those who are tongue-tied or foreign) will not be able to
produce a locutionary act.

In producing a well-formed utterance, people always bear in their minds
some certain communicative goal, which is called the illocutionary act. The
illocutionary act is performed via illocutionary force – the communicative
force of the utterance. For example, when we produce the English locutionary
act: “The QuiI’m studying”, we might want to give an announcement, a request or

politeness strategies manifested in conversations in “the quiet American”

11

even a refusal to a request. These are the illocutionary forces which perform
the illocutionary acts of this utterance.

The illocutionary act will have some effect on the hearer. This effect is
the perlocutionary act or perlocutionary effect. Under certain circumstances,
the hearer will interpret the illocutionary force of the utterance and take some
appropriate reaction. For example, when a roommate says, “The QuiI’m studying”, the
perlocutionary act performed by the other will be that he/she stop making

noise. When the perlocutionary act is identical to the illocutionary act, then
communication is successful.

Above, we have examined the distinction among three dimensions of
speech act. Among them, illocutionary act is the core dimension and it is
usually assumed that speech act means illocutionary act. The distinction is
necessary for accomplishing communicative effectiveness, because an
individual locutionary act may have different illocutionary forces and require
different perlocutionary acts. In order to have the best interpretation and react
in the right manner, the hearer needs to utilize many other factors than just the
linguistic expression that he hears.

1.1.3 Classification of speech acts

Speech acts can be classified in several ways. The first approach which
is made on the basis of grammatical structure sees that there are three types of
speech acts: statement, question and command. These classes coincide with
three basic sentence types: declarative, interrogative and imperative. For
examples:

You wear a seatbelt. (declarative)

Do you wear a seatbelt? (interrogative)

Wear a seatbelt! (imperative)

(Yule 1996:54)

However, form and function do not always correspond with each other.
A question-formed utterance may function as a question or request or even an

exclamation. The relationship between structure and function is not always
one-to-one. Whenever this relationship is direct, we have a direct speech act;
and whenever the relationship is indirect, we have an indirect speech act.
Thus, an interrogative used to make a question is a direct speech act, whereas

politeness strategies manifested in conversations in “the quiet American”

12

an interrogative employed to perform a request is an indirect speech act. For
example:

a) What is the weather like today?

 I ask you what the weather is like today? (direct speech act)

b) Would you mind opening the window?

 I request you to open the window. (indirect speech act)

Yule (1996) claims that generally, using indirect speech act is more
polite than using direct speech act.

The second approach to distinguishing types of speech acts is based on
their illocutionary force, i.e. their function. There have been different trends of
classification based on this approach. Austin (1962) put speech acts into 5
categories: verdictive, exercitive, commissive, behabitive and expositive.
Verdictives, as the name implies, are typified by the giving of a verdict by a
judge, a jury or an arbitrator. Exercitives involve the giving of a decision
which either supports or rejects a certain action. Commissives are speech acts

which commit the speaker to a certain course of action, e.g. promising or
contracting. Behabitives are the reaction to other people’s behaviors or
attitudes to someone’s past actions. Expositives include the acts of exposition
involving the expounding of views, the conducting of arguments, etc.

This classification was, however, later criticized by linguists such as
Searl (1979) and Leech (1983). Searl claims that Austin’s categories
sometimes overlap. For example, the act of describing belongs to 2 categories:
verdictive and expositive. Therefore, he suggested another classification that
devides speech acts into 5 groups: assertives, directives, commissives,
expressives and declaratives. Assertives (or representatives) show the
speaker’s commission to the truth of the utterance. Directives are aimed at
making the hearer perform some immediate actions. “The QuiInherently, these are
face-threatening acts” (Celce-Murcia et al 2000:25). Commissives commit
the speaker to some future action and they are face-threatening to the speaker.
Expressives show what the speaker feels and what his attitude is; declarations
are a special kind of speech act which makes some changes in the world by
means of language, e.g. dismissing, naming, appointing, etc.

In discussing Searl’s categories of illocutionary acts, Leech (1983)
shows how politeness affects speech acts of these categories. According to

politeness strategies manifested in conversations in “the quiet American”

13

him, assertives are neutral as regards to politeness, i.e. politeness is irrelevant
to them. For directives, negative politeness is important; commissives and
expressives are intrinsically polite; and declarations do not involve politeness.
In other words, assertives and declarations require no politeness, whereas

negative politeness belongs to the class of directive, and positive politeness is
found in the commissive and expressive classes.

Leech (1983), from the viewpoint of functions as well as the
relationship between communicative and social goals, put speech acts into 4
categories:

a) Competitive: The illocutionary goal competes with the social goal,
e.g. ordering, asking, demanding, begging, etc.

b) Convivial: The illocutionary goal coincides with the social goal, e.g.
offering, inviting, greeting, thanking, congratulating, etc.

c) Collaborative: The illocutionary goal is indifferent to the social goal,
e.g. asserting, reporting, announcing, instructing, etc

d) Conflictive: The illocutionary goal conflicts with the social goal, e.g.
threatening, accusing, cursing, reprimanding, etc.

(Leech 1983 : 104)
Leech’s classification is based on the grounds of politeness, as he states
in his book. He claims that the first two types are the ones that chiefly involve
politeness. Competitive illocutionary acts require negative politeness and
convivial illocutionary acts require positive politeness. On the other hand,
politeness is irrelevant to collaboratives and is out of the question in regard to
conflictives. This is a rather sensible classification of speech acts from the
perspective of politeness.
Yule (1996) shows the same view as Searl’s when he introduces the
five-category classification of speech acts: declarations, representatives,
expressives, directives and commissives.

Of all the ways to classify speech acts mentioned aboved, Searl’s
(1979) is the most widely discussed and agreed.
1.2 Politeness
1.2.1 What is politeness?

politeness strategies manifested in conversations in “the quiet American”

14

Politeness is one of the essential demands of social interaction,
especially in the civilized society. In general, politeness means showing
consideration to others. It can be manifested through general social behaviors
(for example, holding a door open to allow someone else to pass through) as
well as by linguistic means. In order to be linguistically polite, it is necessary
that people speak appropriately according to the kind of relationship between
them and to the circumstance under which they are communicating.

Politeness is considered one of the features of discourse, an undeniable
element of linguistic communication. Thus, it has become an increasingly
more significant matter of pragmatics – the study of speaker’s meaning. So
far, in the history of pragmatics, there have been a variety of views on the
notion of politeness. Fraser (1990) summarizes that there have been 4 major
approaches to politeness:

1) In the pre-pragmatic studies, many scholars had mentioned
politeness and considered it as a social norm.

2) Lakoff (1973, 1989) and Leech (1983) approach politeness from the
perspective of conversational maxims, connecting their study with Grice’s
conversational maxims.

3) Brown & Levinson (1987) study politeness as strategies employed by
the speakers to obtain or to save “The Quiface”.

4) Fraser (1990) sees politeness from the aspect of conversational
contract.

( Nguyễn Đức Dân, 2000:142)

According to Yule (1996), politeness means “The Quibeing tactful, generous,
modest, and sympathetic towards others”.

Of all the views mentioned above, the conversational – maxim view of
Leech & Lakoff and the face – management view of Brown & Levinson
(1987) are most largely appreciated and discussed.

1.2.2 The conversational – maxim view on politeness

1.2.2.1 Politeness rules

Lakoff (1973) sees politeness as “The Quia system of interpersonal relations
designed to facilitate interaction by minimizing the potential for conflict and
confrontation inherent in all human interchange” (quoted in Tran Ba Tien

politeness strategies manifested in conversations in “the quiet American”

15

2003:28). With regard to Grice’s Cooperative Principle, she details her
Politeness Principle into three rules: Don’t Impose, Offer Options, and

Encourage Feelings of Camaraderie.

Rule 1: Don’t Impose

This is the most formal politeness rule, which means not imposing on
the hearer (H) and not preventing him from doing what he wants. A speaker
(S) following this rule will minimize the imposition on the H by apologizing
or asking for permission when S asks the H to do anything that the H does not
want to. S also avoids giving or seeking personal opinions and avoids referring
to personal matters, family, and habits. Titles are preferably used in this
politeness rule. Rule 1 is used in situations when participants are greatly
different in power and status, for example a student and the Dean or a factory
worker and the President. Thus, this rule takes effect when very formal
politeness is required.

Rule 2: Offer Options

In comparison with rule 1, this is a more informal politeness rule. The S
following this rule will offer options to H by expressing himself in such a way
that his opinions or requests are not likely to be contradicted or rejected.
Options are offered by the use of indirect speech acts, conversational
implicature or hedges. This rule is appropriate in conversations between
people who are not different in status or power, but are not socially close, such
as a businessman and a client; i.e. when informal politeness is required.

Rule 3: Encourage the Feeling of Camaraderie

This is a very informal rule of politeness, which is popular between
intimates, close friends or members of a family. According to this rule,
indirect speech acts and hedges are totally inappropriate. Any topic can be

mentioned and participants show active interest in each other, ask personal
questions, make personal remarks, show regards and trust by being open about
their personal life and feelings. Rule 3 is used when intimate politeness is
required.

1.2.2.2 Politeness maxims

Similarly to Lakoff, Leech (1983) connected politeness with Grice’s
Cooperative Principle. He sees politeness as crucial in explaining “The Quiwhy people
are often so indirect in conveying what they mean” (Leech 1983:80).

politeness strategies manifested in conversations in “the quiet American”

16

Politeness concerns a relationship between two participants: self and other (S
and H). His politeness theory is based on the notion of “The Quicost” and “The Quibenefit”
between the speaker (S) the hearer (H). But S also shows politeness to third
parties, who is not H and may or may not present in the speech situation.
According to Leech, politeness is the compensation for the cost that the S’s
expressions cause to the H. In order to have a polite utterance, the S needs to
adjust the cost – benefit balance so as to create balance in interpersonal
interaction. Thus, politeness “The Quirescues the Cooperative Principle” and
maintains good social relationships as well as intimate relationships. His
Politeness Principle (PP) states:

“The QuiMinimize (all things being equal) the expression of impolite belief;
maximize (all things being equal) the expression of polite belief”.

He introduces a number of maxims that he claims to be aimed at

“The Quiexplaining the relationship between sense and force in human conversation”

Maxim I: The Tact Maxim

Tact is the most important kind of politeness in English-speaking
societies and it correlates with the directive and commissive in Searl’s
categories of speech acts. The Tact Maxim runs as follows: “The QuiMinimize the
expression of beliefs which imply cost to other; maximize the expression of
beliefs which imply benefit to other”. Being tactful means S gives an effort to
increase benefit to H. Whether an utterance is polite or not can be judged by
putting it on a cost-benefit scale. An example of such a scale is the following:

Cost to H Less polite

1) Hang the washing out.

2) Close the window.

3) Come in.

4) Look at that.

5) Help yourself to the whisky.

6) Have another sandwich.

Benefit to H More polite

politeness strategies manifested in conversations in “the quiet American”

17

The implied cost to H can be reduced not only by changing the
propositional content of the utterance like in the above examples but also by
using “The Quiminimizers”. The minimizers help to limit the size of imposition on H
and thus improve politeness. This strategy has much in common with Lakoff’s
politeness rule “The QuiDon’t impose”.

E.g.: Let me use your computer for a little while.

Hang on a second.

Just a minute.

Another way of achieving the scale of politeness when the propositional
content needs to be kept the same is using a more and more indirect kind of
illocution. Leech claims: “The QuiIndirect illocutions tend to be more polite (a)
because they increase the degree of optionality and (b) because the more
indirect an illocution is, the more diminished and tentative its force tends to
be” (Leech 1983:108).

Less indirect Less polite

1) Lend me your pen.

2) Can you lend me your pen?

3) I was wondering if I could borrow your pen.

More indirect More polite

Maxim II: The Generosity Maxim

The Generosity Maxim states: “The QuiMinimize benefit to self; maximize cost
to self”. (Leech 1983:133)

In comparison with the Tact Maxim, Generosity is a self-centered kind
of politeness, whereas Tact is other-centered. It appears that the Generosity
Maxim is the reverse of the Tact Maxim: when S means to minimize benefit to
self, S also means to minimize cost to other; when cost to self is maximized,
benefit to other is also maximized. Therefore, it is likely that both of these
maxims will apply in the same utterance. However, there are still cases when
only one maxim is observed without the observation of the other. For
example, in a piece of advice like: “The QuiYou can get them for less than half the
price at the market”, only the Tact Maxim applies: it is meant to be beneficial
to H but does not imply any cost to S.

politeness strategies manifested in conversations in “the quiet American”

18

It has also been proven that the Generosity Maxim is less powerful than
the Tact maxim. Thus, with the same propositional content: “The QuiI request you to
lend me your pen”, it is more polite to say: “The QuiCould I borrow your pen?” than
to say: “The QuiCould you lend me your pen?” because the former expression flouts
the Generosity Maxim, while the latter flouts the Tact Maxim.

Being generous is one kind of politeness; however, it should be applied
within certain limitation. Over applying this maxim may sound sarcastic and
thus lead to communication breakdown.

Maxim III: The Approbation Maxim

This maxim states: “The QuiMinimize dispraise of other, maximize praise of
other” (Leech 1983:134)

Obviously, saying pleasant things about others is preferable to saying
unpleasant things. E.g. paying someone a compliment like: “The QuiYou have a
stylish shirt” is very polite, while saying “The QuiYou have a dirty shirt” is not. In
everyday conversation, however, sometimes we cannot praise others for sake
of sincerity and honesty. In order to be polite in such cases, we can choose
either saying nothing or using indirect or evasive expressions. We may say:
“The QuiHis shirt is not very clean” instead of “The QuiHis shirt is dirty”.

Another thing that S needs to bear in mind when applying this maxim is
that “The Quiother” may be H or H’s dear things or people. Therefore, it is not polite
to ask: “The QuiAre those noisy children yours?” or “The QuiDid you cook this smelly dish?”

Maxim IV: The Modesty Maxim

This maxim states: “The QuiMinimize praise of self; maximize dispraise of
self” (Leech 1983:136)

This maxim explains why saying “The QuiI was very kind to them” is
considered to be less polite than saying: “The QuiI didn’t give them enough support”.
However, the situation does not stay the same in all cultures. The application
of the Modesty Maxim varies greatly according to societies and cultures. In
English speaking cultures, the recipient of a compliment is supposed to show
his politeness by saying thank you, whereas in Oriental cultures like
Vietnamese, it is best to deny the praise.

E.g. A: You have a very nice shirt.

B: Thank you. (preferred in English-speaking cultures)

politeness strategies manifested in conversations in “the quiet American”

19

A: You have a very nice shirt.

B: Oh, it’s very plain. (preferred in Vietnamese culture)

Maxim V: The Agreement Maxim

Jenny Thomas restates this maxim of Leech as follow: “The QuiMinimize the
expression of disagreement between self and other; maximize the expression
of agreement between self and other”.

According to this maxim, when showing agreement to H, S tends to use
a direct or even exaggerating way. On the contrary, disagreement is usually
expressed indirectly or partially. In the following examples, (2) is more polite
than (1) but less polite than (3):

E.g. 1) A: His lecture was very good, wasn’t it?

B: No, I think it was unintelligible.

2) A: The film was interesting, wasn’t it?

B: Well, but the end is not really satisfactory.

3) A: Isn’t it a marvelous car?

B: Yes, it is.

Maxim VI: The Sympathy Maxim

This maxim states that being polite means minimizing antipathy
between self and other along with maximizing sympathy between self and
other. Thus, it is polite to say a condolence like: “The QuiI’m sorry to hear that your
cat died” or a congratulation like: “The QuiI’m glad to hear that you’ve passed your
driving test”.

The set of maxims was introduced by Leech with regards to Searl’s
categories of speech acts. Each maxim applies particularly to one or more
certain kinds of illocutionary acts. The Tact Maxim and the Generosity
Maxim are used to adjust the cost-benefit balance between participants of a
conversation. Therefore, they are appropriate with directive and commisive
speech acts, since directives are cost to H and commissives are cost to S. The
Approbation Maxim applies to the class of expressives because an expression
of feeling is considered polite if that feeling is preferred by H. And the other
three maxims: Modesty, Agreement, and Sympathy are appropriate with

politeness strategies manifested in conversations in “the quiet American”

20

representatives: a speech act expressing a belief in such a way which shows
that S agrees or sympathizes with H is obviously a polite one.

On the other hand, not all the maxims are equally important. Maxim I
appears to be a more powerful constraint on conversations than Maxim II, and
Maxim III is of more significance than IV. Thus, politeness attaches more
importance on other than on self. Likewise, politeness towards the addressee
is generally more important than politeness towards a third party.

Leech also notices that these maxims should be observed “The Quiup to a
certain point” rather than as absolute rules, and over applying any maxim
would lead to the feeling that S is being insincere or tedious.

1.2.3 The face-management view on politeness

1.2.3.1 Face

Face is the central concept in Brown&Levinson’s theory of politeness.
They derive this term from Goffman’s definition of face:

...the positive social value a person effectively claims for himself
by the line others assume he has taken during a particular contact. Face is
an image of self delineated in terms of approved social attributes – albeit
an image that others may share, as when a person makes a good showing
for his profession or religion by making a good showing for himself.

(Quoted in Thomas 1995:168)

According to Yule (1996), “The Quiface means the public self-image of a
person. It refers to that emotional and social sense of self that every one has
and expects every one else to recognize”. Since face is emotionally invested, it
can be damaged, maintained or enhanced through interactions with others.

Likewise, since face is the social self-worth of everyone, in social interactions,
participants must constantly pay attention to each other’ face. It is essential
that every member of the society takes care of his own face as well as
considers others’ face, because their faces are mutually dependent. If
someone’s face is threatened, that person can be expected to defend his own
face, and in doing this, he’ll threaten the face of the others. Therefore, it is
best to maintain each other’s face.

In everyday social interactions, people usually behave in ways that their
expectations concerning their public self-image will be respected. This
expectation is called face want. Every member of society knows that every

politeness strategies manifested in conversations in “the quiet American”