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

TRIỆU THỊ TRANG A STUDY OF POLITENESS STRATEGIES IN THE
CONVERSATIONAL ACTIVITIES OF THE
COURSEBOOK –
NEW HEADWAY, INTERMEDIATE.

(NGHIÊN CỨU CÁC CHIẾN LƯỢC LỊCH SỰ CÓ TRONG CÁC BÀI HỘI THOẠI CỦA
GIÁO TRÌNH GIAO TIẾP “NEW HEADWAY, INTERMEDIATE.”)
M.A. MINOR THESIS
FIELD: ENGLISH LINGUISTICS
CODE: 602215


NEW HEADWAY, INTERMEDIATE.

(NGHIÊN CỨU CÁC CHIẾN LƯỢC LỊCH SỰ CÓ TRONG CÁC BÀI HỘI THOẠI CỦA
GIÁO TRÌNH GIAO TIẾP “NEW HEADWAY, INTERMEDIATE.”) M.A. MINOR THESIS
FIELD: ENGLISH LINGUISTICS
CODE: 602215 Supervisor: Prof. NGUYEN QUANG (Ph.D.)
Hanoi-2009

iv
TABLE OF CONTENTS

Contents
Pages
* Abstract
i
* Acknowledgements
ii
* Lists of Abbreviations, tables and figures

9
I.2.2.1. Positive Politeness and Positive Politeness Strategies
11
I.2.2.2. Negative Politeness and Negative Politeness Strategies
14
Chapter 2: Positve and Negative Politeness strategies in Conversational
activities in the coursebook “New Headway, ntermediate”
17
II.1. Frequency of occurrence of Politeness strategies
17
II.2. Positive and negative politeness strategies in conversational activities
in twelve units of the coursebook “New Headway, Intermediate”
20
II.2.1. Positive politeness strategies in conversational activities in twelve
units of the coursebook “New Headway, Intermediate”
20
II.2.2. Negative politeness strategies in conversational activities in twelve
units of the coursebook “New Headway, Intermediate”
25
II. 2.3. Concluding remarks
29
Chapter 3: Implications for teaching the coursebook
30
III.3.1. Implications for ELT
30
III.3.2. Some recommendations
31
III.3.3. Some sample exercises and activities
31
Part III. Conclusion

conversations.
Table 2: Statistics of the frequency of positive politeness strategies.
Figure 4: Frequency of positive politeness strategies used in the conversations.
Table 3: Statistics of the frequency of negative politeness strategies
Figure 5: Frequency of negative politeness strategies used in the onversations.
1
PART I: INTRODUCTION
1. Rationale.
The English language seems to take over the world in the course of the twenty –
first century and become the global language. Nowadays, English has played an
important role in our daily life and made a considerable contribution to education,
culture, business, science and technology. The number of people learning English for
various purposes such as job, business, traveling is continually on the increase
everyday. Therefore, variety kinds of English teaching and learning materials are
available all over the world, especially in Vietnam.
In Vietnam, English has been regarded as the most important foreign language
nowadays, especially since the Vietnamese Government carried out the open – door
policy. English then becomes a compulsory subject in most schools, colleges and
universities throughout the country. However, the emphasis on transmission of
structural rules and forms often serves as the principle method of teaching English in
Vietnam. Therefore, most Vietnamese teachers tend to focus more on grammar rather

The aims of the study are:
- To study positive and negative politeness strategies in most typical contextual
environments in the conversational activities of the course book “New – Headway,
Intermediate”.
- To collect and design sample cross – cultural activities and exercises to raise
students’ cross- cultural awareness.
- To suggest effective and efficient ways of teaching the course book “New
Headway”

3. Scope of the study:
This study focuses on the realization of positive and negative politeness strategies
found in the conversational activities (twelve units) of the course book “New –
Headway, Intermediate”.

4. Methodology:
The major method that the author has employed is quantitative with due reference
to qualitative method since this study focuses on the practical aspects of cross – cultural
communication. All the considerations and conclusions are based on analysis and
reference. The main approaches are:
- Reference to publication;
- Discussion with supervisor;
3
- Discussion with colleagues;
- Personal observations
5. Design of the study
The study is divided into three parts:
Part I: Introduction which includes Rationale, Aims of the study, Scope of the study

PART II: DEVELOPMENT
Chapter 1: THEORETICAL BACKGROUND
I.1. Speech acts (SA)
One of the concepts which have attracted many linguists and scientists in the study
of language usage is that of speech acts. Green (1975) emphasizes that speech acts are
viewed and performed differently in different cultures. In fact, it has been proved that
people in different cultures choose alternative ways to express speech acts. These
differences in many cases proved, lead to misunderstanding and miscommunication in
cross – cultural interaction.
The theory of speech acts studies the relations between language symbols and their
use for communication purposes. Austin (1962) is the first to initiate the theory of
speech acts. In his very influential book, How to Do Things with Words, Austin (1962),
observes that in saying something that has a certain sense and reference, one is
normally doing something other than just saying something like making a request or
making a promise or an offer, etc. According to Austin, there are three types of acts:
* Locutionary acts: A locutionary act is the performance of an actual utterance and its
ostensible meaning, comprising phonetic, phatic and rhetic acts.
E.g: He said to me “The door is here!”
* Illocutionary acts: Illocutionary act is an act performed in saying something, it is
closely connected with the speaker’s intention such as stating, questioning, promising,
giving commands, threatening and many others. Illocutionary acts are considered the
core of the theory of speech acts. Basically, illocutionary act indicates how the whole
utterance is to be taken into the conversation. Sometimes it is not easy to determine
what kind of illocutionary act the speaker performs, therefore, in order to correctly
decode the illocutionary act performed by the speaker, it is also necessary for the
hearer to be acquainted with the context the speech act occurs in.
Let’s analyse the example: “The door is here”. This simple declarative sentence can
be interpreted in at least two ways. It can be either understood literally a reply to the
question “Where is the way out?” or possibly “Where is the door?” or it can be taken as
an indirect request to ask somebody to leave. The sentence has thus got two

attitude, or to encourage an interest in a particular type of music.
6
There are many utterances with the purposes to effect the hearer in some ways or
other, some convey the information directly, others are more careful and polite so they
employ indirectness to transmit the message.

I.1.1. Direct and indirect speech acts.
I.1.1.1. Direct speech acts.
One of the remarkable issues in the study of speech acts is the difference between
direct and indirect speech acts. A direct speech act can be performed by using
sentences literally or using implicit performative sentences. Directness requires a good
feeling for the situation, however, being too direct when stating the opinion might seem
like an insult, especially if the hearer perceives the speaker as being lower in the social
hierarchy. Direct commands, of course, can easily sound like that the speaker is
bossing people around.
E.g: “Give me the sweater!”
“Where is the carpark?”
Asking direct questions from someone may make hearers feel that the speaker is
being nosy or intrusive. Furthermore, they might feel the S is forcing them to be rude
by asking a question they cannot skate over and must answer with a direct “I don’t
want to tell you.”
Nevertheness, the relationships between speakers and hearers play important parts
in communicating. Obviously, a mother would have no problem saying those things to
her seven-year-old, for two reasons: One, the two are socially very close to each other
and two, the mother is higher in the social hierarchy than the seven-year-old. But if a
stranger walks up to someone on the street and says those things, the hearer might feel
offended. Politeness rules dictate that increase in social distance requires more

communication. Although the essence of politeness is popular in all cultures, it is
expressed differently in different cultures. It is also a culturally defined phenomenon,
and what is considered polite in one culture can be in many cases quite rude or simply
strange in another. In language study, politeness is defined in Wikipedia as the
practical application of good manners or etiquette. And “Politeness is the ability to
please others through one‟s external actions” (Watt, 2003:39). According to Thomas,
“politeness is interpreted as a strategy (or series of strategies) employed by a speaker
8
to achieve a variety of goals, such as promoting or maintaining harmonious relation.”
(Thomas, 1995: 157).
Brown and Levison (1978) distinguished two types of politeness: positive and
negative politeness. Positive politeness is used to satisfy the speaker’s needs for
approval and belonging, Positive politeness is attempts by a speaker to treat the listener
as a friend or as someone to be included in discourse. For an American speaker, giving
a friend or co-worker the compliment, “Your hair looks nice today,” would be one
example of positive politeness. Negative politeness, on the other hand, is an attempt by
the speaker to save the listener’s face by engaging in some formality or restraint to
minimize the imposition of a face - threatening act.
According to Brown and Levinson (1978), politeness strategies are developed in
order to save the hearers' "face". Face refers to the respect that an individual has for
himself or herself, and maintaining that "self-esteem" in public or in private situations.

I.2.1. Face
Face might be treated respectfully as norms or values subscrided to by members of
a society. It refers to the emotional and social sense of self that everyone has and
expects others to recognize. In their 1987 book, Brown and Levinson define that face is
the public self image that everyone tries to project. However, “when we attempt to

I.2.2. Politeness strategies
Linguists have stated different ways of expressing politeness strategies.
Nevertheless, many basically agree to some general principles for being polite in social
interactions which are Politeness Rules of Lakoff (1990), Politeness Principles Maxims
of Leech (1983) and Politeness Strategies of Brown and Levinson (1987). Amongst
outstanding linguists, the most influential theory of politeness is put forward by Brown
and Levinson.
In Brown and Levinson’s Politeness Strategies, the concept of “face” is the central part
of their theory. A set of five strategies to minimize risk of losing face is suggested by
these two authors. The choice of the strategies will be performed on the basic of the
speaker’s assessment of the size of the face threatening acts (FTAs), which are certain
illocutionary acts liable to damage or threaten another person’s face. The following
figure shows circumstances determining choice of the strategies.

10

Figure 1: Circumstances determining choice of strategies.
(P. Brown and S.C. Levinson, 1987:60)

In spite of his high appreciation of the above chart, Nguyen Quang (2001) has some
comments on its universal value, especially on the sorting numbers two and three for
positive and negative politeness. He proposes the following figure:

Lesser risk
Greater risk
Do the FTA
5. Don’t do the

in general or to the expression of similarity between ego’s and other’s wants”. In order
4. Do not do the FTA
FTA encounter
3. Off
record
Do the FTA
On record
2. With redressive action
Positive Politeness
Negative Politeness
1. Without redressive action
12
to be polite the speaker pays more attention to the H and hopes to satisfy the H’s
communicative needs.
Politeness strategies vary from language to language and within each society.
Positive politeness strategies seek to minimize the threat to the hearer’s positive face.
They are used to make the hearer feel good about himself, his interests or possessions,
and are most usually used in situations where the audience knows each other fairly
well. In addition to hedging and attempts to avoid conflict, some strategies of positive
politeness include statements of friendship, solidarity, compliments.
Viewing that the Vietnamese always want to let others know that they pay attention
to other’s problems and give help whenever it is needed, Nguyen Quang (2003)
suggests seventeen positive politeness strategies, of which the initial fifteen ones are
adopted originally by Brown & Levinson, they are as follows:
* Strategy 1- Notice, attend to H (her/ his interest, wants, needs, goods, etc )
This strategy suggests that S should take notice of aspects of H’s conditions
E.g: Your coat is very nice. Where did you get it?

Jokes are based on mutual shared background and values and putting H “at ease”.
E.g.: Great summer we‟re having. It‟s only rained five times a week on average.
* Strategy 9 - Assert or presuppose S’s knowledge of and concern for H’s wants
Asserting or implying knowledge of H’s wants and willingness to fit one’s own wants
in with them.
E.g.: I know you like chocolates, so I‟ve bought you home a whole box of them.
* Strategy 10- Offers, promises
Strategies 10 to 13: The speaker and hearer can claim some kind of reflexivity between
their wants.
E.g.: I‟ll take you out to dinner on Saturday
* Strategy 11 – Be optimistic that the hearer wants what the speaker wants
E.g.: I know you‟re always glad to get a tip or two on gardening.
* Strategy 12 – Include both S and H in the activity
E.g.: Let‟s go for a walk.
* Strategy 13 – Give or ask for reasons
E.g.: Why don‟t we eat out tonight?
* Strategy 14 – Assume or assert reciprocity
S may indicate that he believes reciprocity to be prevailed between H and himself, thus
that they are somehow locked into a state of mutual helping.
E.g.: Dad, if you help me with my maths homework, I‟ll mow the lawn after school
tomorrow.
* Strategy 15 – Give gifts to H (goods, sympathy, understanding, cooperation)
14
S may satisfy H’s positive-face want by actually satisfying some of H’s wants (action
of gift-giving, not only tangible).
E.g.: A: Have a glass of whisky, Dick.
B: Terrific! Thanks.


15
E.g.: Could you close the door, please?
* Strategy 2 – Question, hedge
Expressing the want not to presume or coerce H. 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. It says of that membership that it is partial or true only in certain
respects, or that it is more true and complete than perhaps might be expected.
E.g.: I wonder whether I could just sort of ask you a question.
* Strategy 3 – Be pessimistic
Gives redress to H´s negative face by explicitly expressing doubt that the conditions for
the appropriateness of S´s speech act obtain.
E.g.: If you had a little time to spare for me this afternoon, I‟d like to talk about my
paper.
* Strategy 4 – Minimize the imposition
Defusing the FTA by indicating that R (rank between S and H), the intrinsic
seriousness of the imposition, is not itself great. Leaving only D (social distance
between S and H) and P (relative power of H over S) as possible weighty factors, so
indirectly this may pay H deference.
E.g.: Could I talk to you for just a minute?
Strategy 5 – Give deference
Two different possibilities to realize the deference: S humbles and abases himself; and
S raises H (pays him positive face of a particular namely that which satisfies H´s want
to be treated superior.
E.g.: Excuse me, sir, but would you mind if I closed the window?
* Strategy 6 – Apologize
By apologizing for doing an FTA, the speaker can indicate his reluctance to impinge on
H´s negative face and partially redress the impingement
E.g.: I‟m sorry to bother you.
* Strategy 7 – Impersonalize the S and H, avoid the pronouns I and you

17

Chapter 2: POSITIVE AND NEGATIVE POLITENESS STRATEGIES IN
CONVERSATIONAL ACTIVITIES IN THE COURSEBOOK “NEW
HEADWAY, INTERMEDIATE”
The course book “New Headway” was written by Liz & Soars and published by
Oxford University Press in 2000. It is a three- level general English course. Level one is
for beginners (New Headway, Elementary), level two for students from elementary to pre-
intermediate (New Headway, Pre- intermediate) and the highest level is used for students
from pre-intermediate to intermediate level (New Headway, Intermediate).
In this section, the author aims at analysing the frequency of occurrence of positive and
negative politeness strategies used in the conversational activities of the course book “New
Headway, Intermediate.”
The study and analysis are based on Brown & Levinson’s and Nguyen Quang’s politeness
theory.

II.1. Frequency of occurrence of positive and negative politeness strategies in
conversational activities in the course book “New Headway, Intermediate”.

appearance
CA1
76.92
10
23.08
3
CA2
40.00
6
60.00
9
CA3
50.00
6
50.00
6
CA4
46.42
13
53.48
15
CA5
35.71
5
64.29
9
CA6
75.00
6
25.00

11

Table 1: Statistics of positive and negative politeness strategies in each CA.

There are 87 positive utterances (54, 37%) and 73 negative ones (45, 63%) amongst
160 utterances. The pie chart below will illustrate clearly the positive and negative
percentages. 19
54,4%
45,6%
Positive Politeness
Strategies
Negative Politeness
Strategies

Figure 3: Frequency of negative and positive politeness strategies found in the
conversations.
The figure above shows the sum together with the respective percentage of
politeness strategies in all conversations in the course book New Headway, Intermediate. It
is observed that positive politeness strategies are employed more frequently than negative
politeness strategies. According to Nguyen Quang (2002), for long-term rapport, people
are more declined to positive politeness in communication. They always want to show their
attention or concerns to others as well as to narrow the distance between S and H. This
seems to suggest that people tend to employ more positive politeness in order to be closer
to their co-interactants (sense of solidarity) and to make the hearer feel good about himself

4. Use in -group identity markers
6
6.9%
5. Seek agreement
1
1.1%
6. Avoid disagreement
2
2.3%
7. Presuppose/ common ground
10
11.5%
8. Joke
2
2.3%
9. Assert S's knowledge of and
concern for H's wants
0
0%
10. Offer, promise
11
12.6%
11. Be optimistic
4
4.6%
12. Include both S & H in the
activity
13
14.9%
13. Give or ask for reasons

12.6
4.6
14.9
11.5
2.3
0
9.2
5.7
0
2
4
6
8
10
12
14
16
%
PPS1 PPS2 PPS3 PPS4 PPS5 PPS6 PPS7 PPS8 PPS9 PPS10 PPS11 PPS12 PPS13 PPS14 PPS15 PPS16 PPS17

Figure 4: Frequency of positive politeness strategies used in the conversations.
The chart shows that the most preferable positive politeness strategy is strategy 12
with 14.9%. The use of this strategy (include both S and H in the activity) in daily life
seems to make the relationship between S and H closer and more intimate by employing
such structures as: Shall we…, Let’s …., Let us…….and Why don’t we…?
Let’s take the followings for example:.
E.g.: “A: Let‟s have a break, shall we?
B: All right. I‟m dying for a cuppa”
(New Headway, Inter., unit 11)