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
TRƯỜNG ĐẠI HỌC NGOẠI NGỮ
KHOA SƯ PHẠM TIẾNG ANH
KHOÁ LUẬN TỐT NGHIỆP
NGÔN NGỮ SỬ DỤNG TRONG
CÁC CUỘC HỘI THOẠI ĐÀM PHÁN KINH DOANH
TRÊN PHƯƠNG DIỆN CÁC CHIẾN LƯỢC LỊCH SỰ
Giáoviênhướngdẫn: PGS. TS. NguyễnXuânThơm
Sinhviên: ĐặngThúyHằng
Khoá: QH2010
HÀ NỘI – NĂM 2014
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

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.
ii
TABLE OF CONTENTS
iii
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
the business negotiation conversations
28
Table 3.2 The frequency of tactics in positive politeness
strategies used in the business negotiation
conversations
31
Table 3.3 The frequency of tactics in negative politeness
strategies used in the business negotiation
conversations
36
Figure 3.1 The frequency of politeness strategies used in
the business negotiation conversations
28
Figure 3.2 The frequency of tactics in positive politeness
strategies used in the business negotiation
conversations by number of appearance
32
Figure 3.3 The frequency of tactics in negative politeness
strategies used in the business negotiation

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

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, including 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 anddiscusses the research findings.
The final partsummarizes 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

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.
1a. You must have some of this fruitcake.

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”.
(4) The Modesty maxim: “minimize the expression of praise of self; maximize
the expression of dispraise of self”.
9
(5) The Agreement maxim: “minimize the expression of disagreement

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 of 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, contempting,
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 positive 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:
- withoutredressive (baldly) – the most clear, unobscure possible way. E.g. for a
request, saying “Do X!”

interest of his own contribution, by “making
a good story.”
“I come into his room, and what do you
think I see? – a huge mess all over the
place and right in the middle, a
naked….”
4. Use in-group identity markers: Using any
of the innumerable ways to convey in-
group membership: address forms, language
or dialect, jargon or slang and ellipses
“Honey, can you give me the beer?”
5. Seek agreement: S seeks ways in which it
is possible to agree with H.
“I hate these politicians, they know
nothing about the small citizen, they
earn….”
6. Avoid disagreement: The desire to agree
or appear to agree with H leads also to
mechanisms for pretending to agree: white
lies and hedges.
“Have you got friends?- I have friends.
So-called friends. I had friends. Let it
put me this way.”
13
7. Presuppose, assert common ground: The
value of S’s spending time and effort on
being with H, as a mark of friendship or
interest in him, by talking for a while about
unrelated topics.
“Isn’t it a beautiful day?”

wants (action of gift-giving, not only
tangible).
Table 1.2. Tactics of negative politeness
Tactics Examples
1. Be conventionally indirect: Opposing “Can you please shut the door?”
14
tensions: desire to give H an “out“ by being
indirect, and the desire to go on record
2. Question, hedge: In literature, a “hedge”
is a particle, word or phrase that modifies
the degree of membership of a predicate or
noun phrase in a set
“I’m pretty sure, I’ve seen that movie
before.”
3. Be pessimistic: Giving redress to H’s
negative face by explicitly expressing doubt
that the conditions for the appropriateness of
S’s speech act obtain.
“You don’t have any exotic plants, do
you by any chance?”
4. Minimize the imposition: Defusing the
FTA by indicating that Rx, the intrinsic
seriousness of the imposition, is not itself
great
“Could I have a tiny bit of …?”
5. Give deference: 2 different possibilities to
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

“I’ll never be able to repay you if…”
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.
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.
16
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

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.
In his book, Nguyen Xuan Thom (2001) claims that “negotiation” is a broad
concept originating from a Latin word, “negotium”, which means business transaction.
He conceives negotiation as a social phenomenon, a form of communication with high
purposefulness, aiming at satisfactorily solving problematic situations between groups
or individuals in social or community activities.
18
Therefore, a negotiation may be a formal or informal one, as long as its purpose
is to persuading others. It may happen in not only business field but also other social
situations.
Burnes (1993) (cited in Nguyen Xuan Thom, 2001) regards negotiation as a
discussion between two or more people to achieve a common goal, which is reaching
an agreement on problems separating parties without any party has enough strength –
or they possess strength but does not want to use - to solve those problems. Burnes’s
definition indicates that the cause of negotiation is conflict, and its aim is to solve
conflicts without force. Conflict, in this concept, is about the differences in viewpoints
or interest of groups or individuals.
Besides, negotiation is defined as to confer or discuss with another with a view
toward reaching agreement where some interests may be shared and some may be
opposed (Notini, 2009).
1.4.2. The nature of negotiation
According to Nguyen Xuan Thom (2001), negotiation has some fundamental
natures as follows.
Negotiation is a science about analyzing and solving problems systematically,