VIETNAM NATIONAL UNIVERSITY, HANOI
UNIVERSITY OF LANGUAGES AND INTERNATIONAL STUDIES
FACULTY OF POST-GRADUATE STUDIES NGUYỄN THÚY HÒA

A STUDY OF POLITENESS STRATEGIES
IN THE CONVERSATIONS
OF THE COURSE BOOK “INSIDE OUT”
(PRE-INTERMEDIATE) Nghiên cứu các chiến lược lịch sự trong các bài hội thoại
của giáo trình “Inside Out” (Pre-intermediate) M.A. MINOR THESIS
FIELD: ENGLISH TEACHING METHODOLOGY
CODE: 60 14 10
HA NOI - 2010
HA NOI - 2010
TABLE OF CONTENTS

Page:
Part 1. Introduction 1
I. Rationale 1
II. Aims of the study 1
III Scope of the study 2
IV. Methodology 2
V. Design of the study 2
Part 2. Development 4
Chapter I. Theoretical Background 4
I.1. Culture and Communication 4
I.2. Communicative Competence 5
I.3. Face and Politeness 6
I.3.1. Face defined 6
I.3.2. Politeness defined 7
I.4. Positive Politeness 10
I.4.1 Positive Politeness defined 10
I.4.2 Positive Politeness strategies 10
I.5. Negative politeness 14
I.5.1 Negative politeness defined 14
I.5.2 Negative politeness strategies 15
Chapter II. Positive and negative politeness strategies found in the conversational
activities of the coursebook Inside Out (pre- intermediate) 18
II. 1. Overview of politeness strategies in “Inside Out” (Pre-intermediate) 18
II.2. Frequency of positive, negative and mixed politeness strategies used in “Inside Out”
(Pre-intermediate) 18
PART I. INTRODUCTION
I. Rationale
Linguists and anthropologists have long recognized that the forms and uses of a
given language reflect the cultural values of the society in which the language is spoken.
Linguistic competence alone is not enough for learners of a language to become competent
in that language (Krasner, 1999). Language learners need to be aware, for example, of the
culturally appropriate ways to address people, express gratitude, make requests, and agree
or disagree with someone. Language learners should know that behaviors and intonational
patterns that are appropriate to their own speech community may be perceived differently
by members of the target speech community. Learners have to understand that in order for
communication to be successful, language use must be associated with other culturally
appropriate behavior.
Hence, to be successful in communicating in the target language, learners must be
aware of their own culture and the culture of the target speech community. Especially, they
must understand the hidden and very important parts of the target culture including the
politeness strategies used in everyday conversations.

- Discussion with supervisor.
- Discussion with colleagues.
- Discussion with students.

V. Design of the study
This study includes the following three parts:
Part 1 is the introduction which presents the rationale, aims of the study, scope of the
study and methodology.
Part 2 is the development that consists of three chapters.
Chapter 1 discusses the theoretical background of culture and communication,
communicative competence, face and politeness, positive politeness and negative
politeness strategies.
Chapter 2 analyzes the performance of politeness strategies in the conversational activities
of the coursebook (Book 2 - Pre-Intermediate) in terms of the performance and frequency
of positive and negative politeness strategies with S-H role relationships in view.
Chapter 3 offers implications for English language teaching and supplementary activities
for cross-cultural awareness.
Part 3 is the conclusion in which the author summarizes the study, raising limitations and
offering suggestions for further research.

PART 2. DEVELOPMENT

a new culture.
I.2. Communicative Competence (CC)
Hymes‟s original idea is that speakers of a language have to have more than
grammatical competence in order to be able to communicate effectively in a language; they
also need to know how language is used by members of a speech community to
accomplish their purposes. CC is the knowledge and skills which enable people to use a
language effectively and their ability to actually use this knowledge for communication
(Hymes, 1970). Hymes distinguishes four sectors of CC: knowledge of what is possible,
feasible, appropriate and actually done.
In Saville – Troike‟s opinion, in order to acquire CC, learners needs three
components: linguistic knowledge, interactive skills and cultural knowledge.
Linguistic knowledge includes verbal factors, nonverbal factors, and stereotypes in
specific speech events, possible continuation of variables and the meaning of variables in
specific context.
Interactive skills include awareness of predominant features in context; choice and
interpretation of forms, suitable to specific contexts, roles and relations; norms in
communication and interpretation; communicative strategies to gain oriented targets.
And cultural knowledge includes social structures, values and attitudes, and
acculturalization.
According to Nguyen Quang (1998:13), the components of linguistic knowledge
and interactive skills, almost always convey awareness of cultural knowledge. Thus, it is
assumed that these three factors in CC, particularly in cross-cultural speech, overlap and
affect one another.
That is the reason why “when we teach a language like English to speakers who
already know another language, we must be aware that we have to teach more than sounds,
words and grammatical structures” (Wardhaugh, cited from Nguyen Thi Tuyet, 2005:5).
I.3. Face and politeness
I.3.1. Face defined
When people are involved in conversations, they individually consider certain
variables, whether consciously or sub-consciously, that help them determine the form that

speaker can either perform the FTA baldly without redressive action or mitigate the FTA
by uttering it with redressive action. Performing an act without redressive action involves
uttering it in the most “direct, clear, unambiguous way possible” (1987: 69). Conversely,
performing an act with redressive action actually gives face to the addressee, making it
clear that no face threat is intended. This can be achieved by adopting the strategies of
either positive politeness or negative politeness.
I.3.2. Politeness defined
Politeness is one of the most important aspects of human communication: human
beings can only exist in peace together if certain basic conventions of politeness are
observed.
It is widely accepted that Brown and Levinson (1987) produce the most
comprehensive theory of politeness to date, the basis of which is used for analytical
purposes in this thesis. They argue that polite linguistic behavior shows up as a deviation
against the rational and efficient nature of talk, but through a consideration of linguistic
politeness, the hearer finds reasons for the speaker's apparent irrationality or inefficiency.
According to Brown and Levinson (1987), positive politeness is redressive action
directed towards the addressee's positive face, demonstrating that the hearer's wants or
needs are thought of as desirable. In contrast, negative politeness is redressive action
directed to the addressee's negative face, demonstrating the speaker's desire not to impose
upon hearers by restricting their actions.
The off record strategy enables the speaker to avoid the responsibility of
performing an FTA. For doing FTAs, in Brown and Levinson‟s opinion, the politeness
strategies can be grouped into five superstrategies which are given in the chart below (the
higher the number of the strategy, the more polite it is). And, “face”, the public self -
image that every member want to claim for himself, consisting in two related aspects:
(a) negative face: the basic claim to territories, personal preserves, right to
non – distraction. E.g. freedom from imposition.
(b) positive face: the positive consistent self – image or “personality”
(crucially including the desire that this self image be appreciated and
approved of) claimed by interactants.

I.4.1. Positive politeness defined
According to Brown & Levinson (1987: 101), "positive politeness is redress
directed to the addressee's face, his perennial desire that his wants (or the actions,
acquisitions, values resulting from them) should be thought of as desirable. In positive
politeness the sphere of redress is widened to include the appreciation of another's wants in
general or to the expression of similarity between egos and other wants". Nguyen Quang
(2003) states that "positive politeness is any communicative act (verbal and/or non-verbal)
which is intentionally and appropriately meant to show the speaker‟s concern to the hearer,
thus enhancing the sense of solidarity between them".
I.4.2. Positive politeness strategies (PPS)
According to Brown and Levinson (1987), politeness strategies are developed in
order to save the hearers' "positive face”. Holding that the Vietnamese are more declined to
letting others know that they with to show their concern to others' problems and their
willingness to give help whenever it is needed, Nguyen Quang (2004) suggests seventeen
positive politeness strategies, of which the initial fifteen are adopted originally from
Brown & Levinson. In this section, the author would give her own examples for
illustration. Following are the 17 positive politeness strategies:
Strategy 1: Notice, attend to hearer's interest, wants, needs, and goods, etc.
This generally means that a speaker should pay attention to a listener‟s noticeable
changes, remarkable possessions, and other things that a listener wants a speaker to notice
and approve of.
E.g.: What a green thumb! When did you plant this tree?
Strategy 2: Exaggerate interest, approval, and sympathy with hearer.
This strategy often occurs with many aspects of prosodies, identifying modifiers
and exaggerated intonation, stress, and usually occurs with such adjectives as “marvelous”,
“incredible”, “devastating”, “fantastic”, “extraordinary” and with such adverbs (plus
adjectives) as “really”, “absolutely”, “exactly”, “truly”
E.g. What a marvelous voice you have!
Strategy 3: Intensify interest to hearer
Speakers wants hearers to share some interest with them. This strategy seems to be

Strategy 9: Assert or presuppose speaker's knowledge of and concern for
hearer's wants.
This strategy is the way to help a speaker communicate with a hearer by
indicating that speaker and hearer are cooperators and potentially force a hearer to
cooperate with a speaker. This commonly occurs with the use of "I know" from a
speaker.
This is also a very interesting strategy which makes a hearer feel comfortable.
E.g. I know you can't bear parties, but this one will really be good - do come!
Strategy 10: Offers and promises
Speakers want to show that they will help a hearer obtain the hearer's desire or
needs by giving offers and promises which are a natural outcome of choosing this
strategy. Also, a speaker wants to show good intentions towards a hearer's positive face
needs.
E.g. I'll drop by sometime next week
Strategy 11: Be optimistic
Speaker wants to show good intentions of helping a hearer obtain his/her desires by
asking the hearer to cooperate with the speaker in carrying out a tacit commitment. This
means that a speaker not only wants to show good intentions, but also wants both hearer
and speaker to complete an action to carry out this commitment.
E.g. I've come to borrow a cup of flour.
Strategy 12: Include both speaker and hearer in the activity
By using “we”, “us”, “let's” in the process of communication, the speaker shows
that the speaker and the hearer are cooperative, and the speaker wants the hearer to
cooperate with him/her in doing something.
E.g. Let's go, then.
Strategy 13: Give (or ask for reasons)
In Britain, giving or asking for reasons seems to be very common and polite. This
strategy often occurs with such phrases as “why not”, “why don't”, “why shouldn't”.
E.g.: Why don't we go camping?
Strategy 14: Assume or assert reciprocity

Speaker uses this strategy when he/she faces opposing tensions which can be
solved by compromise, by conventional indirectness, and by the use of phrases and
sentences that have contextually unambiguous meanings, such as “can you”, “could you”,
“what on earth”, “whatever you do”, “what the hell” “why for God’s sake?”.
E.g.: Could you tell me the time, please?
Strategy 2: Question and hedge
Using question and hedge make a hearer feel less threatened, and more polite. This
strategy derives from the want not to presume and force oneself on a hearer. A hedge can
be a particle, a word, a phrase that modifies the degree of membership, such as “sort of”,
“kind of”, “rather”, “quite”, “technically”, “think”.
E.g. I think Henry is coming.
Strategy 3: Be pessimistic
This strategy is commonly found in redressing a hearer's negative face by the clear
expression of the doubt that the conditions for the appropriateness of a speaker's speech act
obtain. This strategy can be carried out through namely, doing indirect requests with
assertions of felicitous conditions like: “Couldn't possibly”, “by any chance”; or using
subjunctives like: “Could (Would, Might) you please ?”
E.g.: Could you jump over that five foot fence?
Strategy 4 Minimize the imposition
The speaker does not want to impose too much on the hearer, so, the speaker uses
this strategy. By using this strategy, the speaker lets the hearer understand that there is no
imposition or very little imposition on the hearer even whether the hearer could do
something for the speaker or not. This usually occurs with such sentences as “I wonder
if ”, “I just want to ask you if ”, "I am well aware of the trouble when…”, “I know”.
E.g. I just want to ask you if I can borrow your paper.
Strategy 5: Give deference
When using this strategy, the speaker wants to show either he/ she humbles and
abases himself/herself or he/she raises the status of the hearer (by treating the hearer as a
superior). This occurs between a speaker who has lower social status than the hearer and
the hearer who has higher social status than the speaker. Giving deference can be realized

Strategy 11 - Avoid asking personal questions
E.g.: It is cold, isn't it?
Being aware of the importance of positive and negative politeness strategies in
cross - cultural communication, in the next chapter the author will study them through
the conversational activities of the course book "Inside Out" (pre-intermediate) so that
learners can avoid misinterpretation during daily life cross - cultural interactions. CHAPTER II.
POSITIVE AND NEGATIVE POLITENESS STRATEGIES
IN THE CONVERSATIONAL ACTIVITIES
OF THE COURSEBOOK “INSIDE OUT” (PRE-INTERMEDIATE)
II.1 The overview of politeness strategies in “Inside Out” (Pre-intermediate)
“Inside Out” (Pre-intermediate) was written by Sue Kay, Vaughan Jones and Philip
Kerr and published by Macmillan in 2002. “Inside Out” (Pre-intermediate) is a classroom-
tested English course designed to develop real life communicative skills and powers of
self-expression. This coursebook provides a thoroughly enjoyable and lively course for
adults and young adults built around structured work on grammar and lexis, planned
speaking tasks and engaging writing and listening texts. The main grammar and language
functions are presented clearly and practiced through anecdotal activities and
personalizations.
People have different points of view about “polite”. What is considered “polite” in one
place or in one country can be “not polite”, and even “impolite” in other places or
countries. In this study, the author puts no value judgment on any interactional behavior,
but takes a deep insight into politeness strategies which are used by native speakers and the
frequency of each strategy; and based on the findings, she would suggest some tips for
using politeness strategies in English.

Table 1: The statistics of positive, negative and mixed politeness strategies
The statistics are converted into Pie - Chart 1 as follows:
31.3%
11.8%
56.8%
Positive politeness strategies
Negative politeness strategies
mixed politeness strategies

Pie-Chart 1. The frequency of positive, negative and mixed politeness strategies
It is readily observed that the frequency of positive politeness strategies is quite high,
whereas the frequency of negative and mixed strategies is rather low. “Inside Out” (Pre-
intermediate) contains many more positive politeness strategies than negative and mixed
ones. This seems to suggest that the American, in these conversations, are more declined to
positive politeness strategies. They seem to consider positive politeness as a more
appropriate way for the S-H role relationships under study. Similarly, according to Nguyen
Quang (2002), the Vietnamese tend to be more in favour of positive politeness in social
and familial interactions. They wish to show their concern to or for others, and thus,
narrow the distance between S and H. Therefore, this similarity should be observed so that
students can be more confident when engaged in Vietnamese-American cross-cultural
communicative.
II.2.3. Analysis of positive politeness strategies
Based on 17 positive politeness strategies, the utterances in the conversations are
grouped into 17 categories. Following are the positive politeness strategies performed in
the selected conversations:
Positive politeness strategies
Sum
%
1. Notice, attend to H
1

2.59
12. Include both S & H in the activity
5
4.31
13. Give or ask for reasons
2
1.72
14. Assume or assert reciprocity
1
0.86
15. Give gifts
5
4.31
16. Encourage
4
3.45
17. Ask personal questions
1
0.86
The statistics are converted in Chart 1 as follows:
Table 2: The statistics of positive politeness strategies

0.86
4.31
18.97
22.41
10.34
4.31
13.79
0.86