VIETNAM NATIONAL UNIVERSITY, HANOI
UNIVERSITY OF LANGUAGES AND INTERNATIONAL STUDIES
FACULTY of POST-GRADUATE STUDIES
NGUYỄN THỊ PHƯƠNG THẢO Politeness strategies in requests
in “The thorn birds”
(Chiến lược lịch sự trong lời thỉnh cầu trong
"Tiếng Chim Hót Trong Bụi Mận Gai”)

M.A. MINOR PROGRAMME THESIS Field: English Linguistics
Code: 60.22.15 HANOI – 2010

4

Table of contents
Declaration……………………………………………………………………………….
Acknowledgement………………………………………………………………………
Abstract . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ………………………. …………

i
ii
iii
Abbreviations. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ……… ……………
vi
Part A: Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ……………………
1
1. Rationale. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . …………………
2
2. Aims of the study. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ……………… …
2
3. Scope of the study . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . …………… ….
4. Overview of the work. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ……………
2
2

15
16
1.2.2 Social factors affecting politeness. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ……………… . . . . . . . . .
1.2.3 Scales of indirectness in requests ………………………………….……………
18
19
Chapter 2: Politeness strategies in requests in “The Thorn Birds”
22
5
2.1 Positive politeness strategies in requests in “The Thorn Birds” . . . . . . . . . . . . .
22
2.1.1 Strategy 1: Notice, attend to H (his interests, wants, needs, goods) . . . . . . . . . . . .
22
2.1.2 Strategy 2: Exaggerate (interest, approval, sympathy with H) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
23
2.1.3 Strategy 3: Intensify interest to H. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . …………… .
23
2.1.4 Strategy 4: Use in-group identity markers. . . . . . . . . . ……….…… . . . . . . . . . .
24
2.1.5 Strategy 5: Seek agreement. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ………………. . . . . .
24
2.1.6 Strategy 6: Avoid disagreement. . . . . . . . . . . . . ……………. . . . . . . . . . . . . .
25
2.1.7 Strategy 7: Presuppose / raise / assert common ground. . . . . . …………… . . . .
26
2.1.8 Strategy 8: Joke. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . …………… . . . . .
26

32
2.2.8 Strategy 8: State the FTA as a general rule. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ……………… . . . .
32
2.2.9 Strategy 9: Nominalize. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . …………… . . . .
32
2.2.10 Strategy 10: Go on record as incurring a debt, or as not indebting H . . . . . . . . . .
33
2.3 Politeness strategies in requests in “The Thorn Birds” seen from S-H relationship. .
34
2.3.1 Lovers. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . …………… . . . . . . . .
35
2.3.2 Family members. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ……. . . . . . . . . . . .
35
2.3.3 Acquaintances. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ……………… . . . . .
36
6
2.3.4 Strangers. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ……………………
36
PART C: CONCLUSION. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ………………………
38
REFERENCES . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ……
40

7

following sentences correctly as firstly having a conversation with an English-
speaking person: Are you married? How old are you? But it is rather difficult for that
foreigner to accept such personal questions. That is the reason why Richards
(1992:32) makes a distinction between the two notions linguistic competence and
communicative competence, which refers to “….the ability not only to apply the
grammatical rules of a language in order to form grammatically correct sentences
but also to know when and where to use these sentences and to whom.” This
statement highly appreciates the important role of cultural knowledge in
contributing to a successful communication. Being aware of the active part of
communication competence is along with setting up appropriate strategies in
teaching English for Vietnamese students by giving out variable cultural and social
contexts in each English class. And it is advisable to choose politeness situations to
illustrate in such those cases because politeness is one of the most great elements
effecting the choice of language: “When learning a second language, one needs to
acquire the new culture‟s politeness framework, which is very different from that of
one‟s own culture” (Celce-Murcia et al 2000:26). Strategies to choose language
politely, in fact, reflects most on the way people making a request because request
shortly means “to ask your hearer whether he is willing or able to do something”
(Leech & Svartvik, 1975:147). Furthermore, during process of researching, we
9
realize that so far little research has focused on politeness strategies in requests in a
literature work.
Literature is, as being judged, a reflection of society and culture. And the fact
that the more a literary work reflects the present life truthfully and vividly, the more
successful it will get, since it is said that art is for human sakes, not for art sakes.
Therefore language, especially daily language in the literary works will also be
presented vividly. And conversational language in a great novel, apparently, is

independence, steady enough to pass hard life, they also make some positive changes
to catch up with the development of the age. If Fiona- the first generation is brave
enough to suffer from every misfortune but give no struggle for the fate, her daughter
Meggie- a modern girl tries to get her happiness from the hand of God-having a baby
with a priest who she loves, and Justine- Meggie‟s daughter has a quietly different
moral standards There are many characters in the novel but the noble ones are Fiona
(Fee), Meggie, a priest named Ralph and most of the incidents are surrounded by the
love story full of hindrance but romantic between Meggie and Ralph.
The development of the novel is not only exposed via the meticulous
description of the novelist but importantly, by the conversations among the
characters in which we try to find how the characters operate their request politely.
5. Methods of the study
Generally, the thesis employed the Quantitative Method, which is defined as a
research method that relies less on interviews, observations, small numbers of
questionnaires, focus groups, subjective reports and case studies but is much more
focused on the collection and analysis of numerical data and statistics. Counting and
measuring are common forms of quantitative methods. The result of the research is a
number, or a series of numbers. These are often presented in tables, graphs or other
forms of statistics which is the science and practice of developing human knowledge
through the use of empirical data.
6. Design of the study
The thesis comprises three main parts:
Part A: Introduction
This part includes five sub- parts: the rationale, aims, scope, methods and
design of the study.
Part B: Content
This is the nuclear part of the whole study containing three chapters.
Chapter 1: Theoretical background
This chapter makes an overview of the theories on Speech Act, Speech Act of
request and Politeness theory which are treated as the major grounds for the analysis

same region.
S.A was first introduced by Austin (1962), but before him, there were still
some other theorists whose ideas, to some extent, are quite different from Austin‟s.
For example, Moore views “language of common sense” and Bertrand Russell sees
everyday language as “is somehow deficient and defective”. Then they have an
ambitious to idealize language by removing its imperfections and illogicalities.
In contrast, Austin claimed that there is no point in depriving the
imperfections of language, instead during communication process people should
consider how to use and manage with it effectively and appropriately. And this
reaction performs as his background to approach the term “ Speech Act” which is
defined in his famous book “How to do things with words”(1962) as “ We must
consider the total situation in which the utterance is issued- the total Speech Act- if
we are to see the parallel between the statements and performative utterances”
(1962:52). Later, G.Yule explicits the term “total situation” that in order to reach an
effective communication, both S and H are usually helped by the circumstances
surrounding the utterances what he calls “speech event”. Thus, they share one thing
that S.A must be put in certain situation in order to be interpreted appropriately. He
13
takes an example with the utterance: “This tea is really cold!” If this sentence is
uttered on a winter day, it is likely interpreted as a complaint but supposing on a
really hot summer day, it may be considered a praise. Agreeing with what Austin
stated before, G.Yule redefined S.A as “Actions performed via utterances are
generally called Speech Acts and, in English, are commonly given more specific
labels, such as apology, complaint, invitation, promise, or request”
Again, in Austin‟s definition, appearing the term “performative” which he
uses in another phrase “Performative hypothesis”. This term realizes words as
actions. This is considered one of significant exploration not only particularly to him

promise, warn, request, deny, apology However in different contexts, an utterance
can be interpreted differently. For example, when somebody produces the English
locutionary act “The dog is very fierce”, he might want to warn the other not to touch
the dog or the sentence can be considered as a request to ask the host keep the dog in
a stage.
The illocutionary act will have some effect on the H. This effect is
perlocutionary act. With the same utterance but under different situations, the H will
interpret in different ways. If the sentence “Where are you going?” occurs between
two people in Vietnam the H can understand it just a greeting, thus, no need to
answer but he can gives his Perlocutionary act by saying “Hi!” .Yet we can not
apply such effect with the people from other countries. When a Perlocutionary act
coincides with a Illocutionary act, then the communication is successful.
Among those three dimensions, Illocutionary act is interpreted rather
identically with Speech Act: language implies actions. So far, S.A also means
Illocutionary act and two terms can be used alternatively.
“The distinction is necessary for accomplishing communicative
effectiveness, because an individual Locutionary act may have different
Illocutionary forces and require different Perlocutionary act. In order to
have the best interpretation and react in the right manner, the H need to
utilize many other factors than just the linguistic expression he hears”
(quoted in Dang Thi Manh, 2005:6)
Above all, all S.As (especially performative) depend for their effectiveness
on various facility conditions being satisfied. Yule (1996:50) calls these conditions
as: general conditions, preparatory conditions, sincerity conditions, content
conditions, essential conditions. And Jackson and Stock Well explicit those as
follow: “The utterance must be said by the right person to the right person, in the
right place, at the right time, in the right manner.”(1996:140).
15
Eg: You must move it out immediately. (request)
- Commissives commit S to do something in the future such a promise/ threat.
Eg: If you get good marks, I will give you a present.
16
1.1.4 The speech act of request
According to Searle‟s (1979) classification system of speech acts, request falls
into the directives. Its function is that the speaker attempts to get the hearer to do
something by means of what he says or as “an act of asking for something in speech
or writing, especially politely” (in Oxford Advanced Learner‟s Dictionary, 1992:
768).
Eg: “Won‟t you kiss me goodbye” (p. 276) - ask for a kiss goodbye.
“Will you leave me alone, will you” (p. 295) - ask the H to leave him/her
alone.
In request, it is always the requester who directly or indirectly benefits from
the act at the cost of the requestee and threats his “face.” In day- to- day interactions
between the members of a community, each action is performed to maintain
someone‟s “face” and to avoid losing “face.” Since a requester appeals to the
requestee‟s assistance, he/ she is potentially threatening the requestee‟s “negative
face.” The intensity of this threat varies with the level of imposition of the requested
act and the conditions under which the request is made. For instance, when someone
asks another the way to the hospital, the requested “matter” is not likely to threaten
the requestee‟s face very much. Of course, this cannot be the case when a request
involves greater imposition or restriction on the requestee‟s freedom, such as lending
money or giving a lift. Therefore, on one hand, to maximize the chance that a listener
will catch the speaker‟s intention in requesting, the speaker should use directives that
are clear and emphatic. On the other hand, to maximize the chance that a listener will
comply with the request, the speaker should use directives that are polite or indirect.

Eg: “I don’t want to say this but I think I have to. It‟s time you found yourself a
girl”
(p. 114)
By using Disarmer (in above bold sentence) which indicate that the S doesn‟t
wish to make the request but he/she is forced by circumstances to do so, the S try to
soften the impact of the request on the H. And in this novel we consider all of these
factors that occur surround an utterance of request to access politeness strategies.
In conclusion, requesting is one kind of speech acts used variously and
widely in human interactions. Different requests are made to accomplish different
purposes, so it seems likely that requests for different purposes might be made using
a different style. However, in each request, the S often try to increase his/her
politeness in various ways.
1.2 Politeness and indirectness in request
1.2.1 Theory of politeness
In social interaction, people always try to make their speech as polite as
possible. In most of the studies, the politeness has been conceptualized especially as
18
strategic conflict-avoidance or as strategic construction of cooperative human
communication. Yule (1996) generalized politeness as “the means employed to
show awareness of another person´s face” … and as “the idea of polite social
behavior or etiquette, within a culture involves certain general principles as being
tactful, generous, modest, sympathetic towards others”(G. Yule. 1996: 60).
Referring to requests in particular, a native speaker of the language uses
certain strategies in order to maintain norms and principles that form part of social
interaction. As Bonn (2000:32) exposes.
“Speaking in a polite manner involves being aware of the effect a particular
illocutionary force has on one´s addressee, and aggravating or mitigating this

Rule 1: Don't impose (Distance)
Rule 1states that we keep distance from others by not imposing. It means that
avoiding mitigating or asking permission or apologizing for making addressee, doing
anything which addressee does not want to do. In order to keep distance from others,
she points out that we tend to use formal expressions or use technical vocabulary to
exclude personal emotions. This rule 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. In Brown and Levinson's terms, Rule 1 would be equivalent to negative
politeness
Rule 2: Give options (Deference)
The second principle, deference is characterized by saying things hesitantly,
by not stating one's will clearly or by using euphemisms. These mean expressing
oneself in such a way that one‟s opinion or request can be ignored without being
contradicted rejected. It involves the status difference of the speaker and the hearer,
and the speaker yields to the power of the hearer by leaving the option of decision to
the hearer. 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. This strategy is also related to
negative face in Brown and Levinson's sense and involves indirectness.
Rule 3: Be friendly (Encourage Feelings of Camaraderie)
The third principle, camaraderie, on the other hand, emphasizes equality
between the speaker and the hearer, and it enhances closeness between them. By
using Brown and Levinson's term, this strategy enhances positive face of the speaker
and the hearer. In this principle, indirectness can be also employed when the speaker
20
and the hearer understand each other completely and there is no need to talk. Rule 3

without the observation of the other. For example, in a piece of advice like: “You 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.
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: “Minimize 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: “You have a stylish shirt”
is very polite, while saying “You 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: “His shirt is not very clean” instead of “His
shirt is dirty”.
Another thing that S needs to bear in mind when applying this maxim is that
“other” may be H or H‟s dear things or people. Therefore, it is not polite to ask: “Are
those noisy children yours?” or “Did you cook this smelly dish?”
Maxim IV: The Modesty Maxim
This maxim states: “Minimize praise of self; maximize dispraise of self”
(Leech 1983:136)
This maxim explains why saying “I was very kind to them” is considered to
be less polite than saying: “I 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

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.
23
Leech also notices that these maxims should be observed “up 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.
In six maxims, Leech considers that the “tact maxim” is the most important in
politeness in English speaking society.
1.2.1.2 The face-management view on politeness
1.2.1.2.1 Face
Face is the central concept in Brown &Levinson‟s theory of politeness.
According to Brown and Levinson (1978: 66) “Face” is “something that is
emotionally invested, and that can be lost, maintained, or enhanced and must be
constantly attended to in interaction”. Since face refers to the respect that an
individual has for him or herself, and maintaining that "self-esteem" in public or in
private situations as Yule (1996) defined, “face 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”. 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.
Face consists of two related aspects: positive and negative face. A person‟s
positive face, according to Yule (1996), “is the need to be accepted, even liked, by
others, to be treated as a member of the same group, and to know that his or her
wants are shared by others”; and “negative face is the need to be independent, to
have freedom of action, and not to be imposed on by others”. In other words, an
individual‟s positive face want is the desire to be liked, approved of, respected and

H‟s feelings, wants, hopes, etc. (e.g. a disapproval, a criticism, an accusation). Not
only may an illocutionary act threat H‟s face, but it may also have the potential of
damaging S‟s own face. For example, an expression of thanks implies that S accepts
a debt to H, and thus threats S‟s negative face, an apology indicates that S regrets
doing a prior FTA so it damages S‟s positive face.
As usual, we tend to save one another‟s face when speaking. We can attend to
people‟s positive or negative face wants. Depending on whose face and what kind of
face is threatened in an interaction, we can employ appropriate strategies to perform
an FTA. Those strategies are termed as politeness strategies.
1.2.1.2.3 Politeness strategies
The theory assumes that most speech acts, for example requests, offers and
compliments, inherently threaten either the hearer‟s or the speaker‟s face-wants, and
that politeness is involved in redressing those face threatening acts (FTA). On the
basis of these assumptions, three main strategies for performing speech acts are
distinguished: positive politeness, negative politeness and off-record politeness.
25
Positive politeness aims at supporting or enhancing the addressee‟s positive face,
whereas negative politeness aims at softening the encroachment on the addressee‟s
freedom of action or freedom from imposition. The third strategy, off-record
politeness, means flouting one of the Gricean (1975) maxims on the assumption that
the addressee is able to infer the intended meaning. According to Brown and
Levinson, politeness is divided into five strategies to minimize risk of costing face
corresponding to the degree of face-threatening.
- Strategy 1: Bald on record
- Strategy 2: Positive politeness
- Strategy 3: Negative politeness
- Strategy 4: Off record (implicating)

We very much look forward to your
dining with us.
26
6. Apologize.
I‟m sorry to bother you, but…
7. Impersonalize S and H.
It appears that we may have to…
8. State the FTA as a general
rule.
Passengers will refrain from…
9. Nominalize.
I‟m surprised at your failure to reply.
10. Go on record as incurring
debt or as not indebting H.
I‟d be eternally grateful if you could…
Positive
politeness
strategies
1. Notice, attend to H (interest,
wants, needs, approval).
You must be hungry…

of right