Saving The Face

FAR EASTERN UNIVERSITY
INSTITUTE OF EDUCATION UNDERGRADUATE STUDIES 1

FEU Teachers Politeness Strategies
Introduction
Pragmatics is the branch of linguistics that deals with what is beyond the semantic
interpretation in relation to time, place and culture (Li, 2008). It focuses on analyzing and
understanding the human language with regard to the experiences and environment of the
listener. The ability to understand pragmatics is essential in communicating with people
who have different cultures and interpersonal interactions as it will guide the speaker to
carry the communicative intention and to grasp the message as it is intended by other
speakers. Pragmatics also includes what is said; how is it said; what the body of language
is; and how appropriate it is to the given situation (Hill, 2008).
Austin’s Speech Act Theory is a subfield of pragmatics which involves the
utterances of the speaker and the hearer. He mentioned that while communicating, there
are three processes that may be employed by the speaker: 1.) Locution - what we say; 2.)
illocution - what we mean when we say it; and 3.) perlocution - what we accomplish by
saying it (Neill, 2012).
In illocutionary speech acts, Searle (1969) explained that there are five
classifications: 1.) assertive - the speech act that commit a speaker into expressing the
truth, e.g. reciting a creed; 2.) directive - the speech act that are to cause the hearer a
particular action, e.g. request or command; 3.) commissive - where the speaker commits
into some future action, e.g. promise, oaths or threats; 4.) expressive - is the speech act
that expresses the speaker's attitude or emotions such as saying thank you; and
5.) declarative - the speech act that changes the reality in accordance with preposition of
declaration, e.g. baptism or marriage.
Politeness plays an important role in communication as it serves as the ethical
standard in social interactions (Fang, Lingling and Liu, 2014). Man’s civilization is
viewed as a symbol of Politeness (Al-Azzawi, 2011). The language used is more polite
when the social distance is greater due to the power of either of the interactors (Destura-
Madriaga, 2007). Alongside, researchers such as Brown and Levinson developed the
Politeness Theory in the late 1970’s out of the Speech Act Theory (Neill, 2012). They
defined politeness strategy as the tendency to choose the words or utterances being
produced to avoid harming or threatening the public image of the other party (Birner,
2013). The idea of politeness strategy also helps in interpreting why people say the
things in particular way (written or spoken). Moreover in 1987, Brown and Levinson
stated that in social interaction sensibility of the face must be shown and acknowledged.
Politeness Strategies was developed to avoid Face Threatening Acts (FTAs).
FTAs are acts that neglect the hearer’s sense of being respected (Patriage, n.d).
Consequently, these FTAs are unavoidable, so speakers can settle an FTA with negative
politeness that respects the hearer's negative face or with positive politeness with respect
to the hearer's positive face. Negative face is where the person desires to be autonomous,
free and not imposed by others. On the other hand, positive face is where a person needs
to be accepted and liked by others (Brown and Levinson, 1987).

In addition, Brown and Levinson (1987) explained that politeness strategies are
used to maintain a balance protection of the negative and positive face in social
interactions. Politeness has four strategies:
1.) Off-record or indirect strategy which is considered as the most polite because
it respects the hearer's possession and not imposed something. This strategy
includes the following: a.) giving hints, giving association clues, presupposing,
understating, overstating, using tautologies, using contradictions, showing irony,
using metaphors, and rhetorical questions; b.) showing ambiguity and vagueness,
over-generalizing, displacing the hearer, and being incomplete and using of
ellipsis.
2.) Negative politeness strategy, a strategy that presumes the speaker will be
imposing on the listener such as a.) being conventionally indirect; b.) giving
questions and hedges; c.) being pessimistic; d.) minimizing the imposition; e.)
giving deference; f.) apologizing; g.) impersonalizing the speaker and hearer; h.)
stating the FTA as a general rule; i.) Nominalize; and j.) Going on record as
incurring a debt.
3) Positive politeness, a strategy that is used to make the hearer feel good about
themselves, their interests or possessions, and are most usually used in situations
where the audience knows each other fairly well such as; a.) noticing or attending
the hearer; b.) exaggerating, c.) intensifying the interest to the hearer, d.) using in-
group identity markers, e.) seeking agreement, f.) avoiding disagreement,

g.) presupposing, h.) joking, i.) asserting S’s knowledge of and concern for H’s
wants, j.) offering and promising, k.) being optimistic, l.) including both S and H
in the activity, m.) giving or asking for reason, n.) assuming or asserting
reciprocity, and o.) give gifts to H.
4.) Bald on-record, a strategy does not attempt to minimize the threat to the
hearer's face (pgs. 94-227). Thus, the less direct we are, the more polite we seem
to be.
Salvesen (2015) emphasized the politeness strategies found in requests made by
Norwegian speakers and native speakers of English. She interviewed three English L2
speakers and three native speakers of English. The interview was used through role-play
and conducted through face to face or via Skype, in order to record the participants. The
gathering of data took ten to twenty minutes for the participants to get through the
scenarios. With the data being analyzed, Salvesen mentioned that politeness strategies
can transfer from the learners’ first language to their target language.
Another study conducted in American University in Cairo by Soheim (2014),
showed that American participants used slightly fewer positive politeness strategies in the
classroom than their Egyptian colleagues. In contrast, the American teachers who
participated in the study employed more negative politeness strategies compared to the
Egyptian instructors. The data were collected through classroom observation and four
interviews. The participants were five Americans and five Egyptians teaching in
undergraduate Rhetoric and Composition department at an American university in Egypt.

The findings of the study implied the potential usefulness of offering insightful
seminars and workshops high lighting the cultural differences and similarities to new
teachers, who might have a different cultural background from their students’.
Meanwhile, Elmianvari and Kheirabadi (2013) agreed that politeness strategies
are appropriate to collect data from EFL students attending language institute in Belgium.
The data was analyzed through Email of the students from their teacher as a class activity
and made a request in an applicable and polite form. Since the analysis was not an
absolute objective one, it could be concluded that most of the students expressed their
requests in a polite, formal and indirect way through long sentences as an attempt to save
the negative face.
In the study of Sulu (2015) in an EFL class, he observed and tape-recorded one
EFL class in a Turkish university wherein the foreign teacher was not familiar with
Turkish culture yet and had been teaching the students for 6 months. The class interaction
lasted for two hours and three chosen random students were interviewed after. With the
data analyzed, Sulu then stated that if politeness strategy is present inside the classroom,
it would promote peace and harmony, and mutual understanding between students and
teachers. It may also contribute to more effective learning and friendly environment.
Furthermore, Senowarsito (2013), also added that politeness is the first step in
personal and social development. He observed and video-recorded two 90-minute
expressions of both the teachers and students. He then analyzed the data based
on the English class lessons in 11th graders of a state senior high school in Semarang,
Indonesia with 59 students in different classes. The focus of the study was only the verbal
model analysis introduced by Spradley (1980) and the results showed that the perception
of teacher and students on the age gap, social distance, institutional setting, power and the
students’ limitation on their linguistic ability has a contribution in choosing different
politeness strategies.
Meanwhile, the study of Hadidi and Monsefi (2015), presented that male and
female teachers’ conversational traits towards the students is different, and there is a
primary connection between using more polite strategies and learning process and
interaction between teachers and students. The data was gathered through using
questionnaires and observing and tape-recording five male and female teachers with 10
classes in 30 class sessions. The data was then analyzed in two steps: determining valid
responses from participants, and identifying the utterances of disagreement in responses
using Muntigl and Turnbull’s taxonomy. The participants were 90% Turkish L1 speakers
however, the study was conducted in a major language institute in Tabriz, Iran and
English was only used as a medium.
In West China University, another study conducted by Fang, Linling and Liu
(2014), showed that in an EFL class, positive and negative strategies are most used in the
classroom. However, there was more emphasis on using the positive politeness strategy.
The data was gathered in two 45- minutes’ classes of one teacher through observation and
video recording. The classes were non-participatory class with 30 freshmen students
majoring in computer science and the data was analyzed using the method of Jiang
Xiaoqing (2010). The results then showed that the teacher used the positive strategy by
associating the virtue that the teachers and students always cooperate with each other. In
such manner, questions and hedges were also used to avoid imposition and maintaining
the student’s face. This has favored the study of Sulu that using politeness strategies
could lead to more comfortable language learning environment.
In the Philippines, selected classes in four educational institutions were observed
as conducted by Victoria (2012). Its purpose was to investigate how the social
relationship between students and teachers were developed through conversations. This
was done by audio-recording 25 hours classroom interaction, with 12 hours from MA
classes and the rest from undergraduate classes and focusing only to three lecturers. The
data was also analyzed through illustrative examples. With this, it has showed that
positive politeness strategies were consistently used by teachers which was even evident
during asking request or giving orders, correcting mistakes and expressing disapprovals.
Teachers used this to enhance their social relationships to the students, encourage them to
participate in classroom discussions and to avoid FTAs. This has also implied that
teachers were the authority in the classroom and by minimizing FTAs, students would
cooperate and obey them. Thus, balancing the teaching objectives and peaceful relations
in the classroom is the main reason why there is a consistent use of positive politeness
strategies.
Another study on politeness was by Destura-Madriaga (2007) wherein she
examined the politeness in the Teacher's directives whereas it includes the types of
directives that were preferred and mostly used by the teachers. The participants were
college professors who were enrolled in a doctoral degree program or were already
doctoral degree holders. These teachers were grouped into two: One, for those with 14.3
years of teaching experience; and two, with 8.3 average years of teaching. The data was
gathered through the use of questionnaire focusing on the teachers’ commands in the 11
different classroom situations. As a result, the mitigated forms or the less threatening acts
were the most preferred by the teachers to use. And therefore made the conclusion that,
the power of the teacher was considered to be linked in using fierce or threatening
directives.
In the meantime, Aporbo (2014), showed Face-threatening acts among Filipino
interactants. The participants were from the demonstrating teacher and students of
English -28 (The Teaching of literature of USEP) in Tagum - Mabini Campus. The
interaction from the verbal exchanges in both non-academic discussions were analyzed
and explained based on the Politeness Theory - Face Threatening. With this, three
principles in language were shown: first, the pragmatic principle of face affection that all
speech acts and all utterances affect both speakers and hearer’s face; second, pragmatic
principle of face threat that all non-impolite speech acts as well as polite speech acts
threaten in S’s and H’s faces and third pragmatic principle of face invasion that all rude
speech acts invade in S’s and H’s faces.

Likewise, Ambuyo, Indede and Karanja (2011) examined the politeness in the
context of politics during question time discussions of the Kenyan Parliament. They
proceed to the question time sessions which is live televised within a month of April and
May 2009 were recorded, transcribed and sampled for analysis. This was done using a
theoretical framework encompassing positive, negative, and image repair politeness
strategies. The findings show that certain strategies are used to mitigate FTAs thus
enhancing effective communication; others are a ritual requirement by the standing
orders whereas others are as a result of mere politics between the different political
factions.
Moreover, Chen’s study (2017) entitled Face-Threatening Acts: Conflict between
a Teacher and Students in EFL Classroom, wherein, one female EFL teacher of the junior
high school and her 49 EFL students participated in the study. Through the use of
observation in the class, the teacher interview and gave students’ questionnaires which
included, 38 threatening acts and 4 main threat types (indirect threats, indirect accusation,
direct threats with modified blame, and direct threats with explicit blame) were noted.
The factors affecting the teacher’s use of threatening acts and students’ responses and
opinions toward the teacher’s use of threats were discussed. The pedagogical implications
were provided at the end of the study.
All of the studies above have shown that politeness strategies were more likely to be used
by teachers and the main reason for this was to develop friendly classroom environment
and social relationships. However, because of the differences in some aspects either
the purpose, participants, or the method used to analyze the data, the results were
affected. For instance, the study of Hadidi and Mosefi (2015) which focused on
comparing the male and female teachers’ politeness strategies have given the result that
the gender affects the kind of trait the teachers have to the students.
With this, the researchers decided to conduct such kind of study to determine
whether the related studies above will show the same findings to the classroom
interaction of selected FEU English teachers.
The related literatures have contributed insights and interpretations to the present
study. Moreover, it has appeared that there is a gap, and there is no further study about
politeness strategy of the teachers in Far Eastern University (FEU).
The purpose of this study is to determine the politeness strategies used by the
English teachers in Far Eastern University. Specifically, the researchers sought to answer
the following questions:
1) What are the politeness strategies employed by the teachers?
2) What are the face-threatening acts committed by the teachers inside the
classroom?
This study analyzed the politeness strategies used by the English teachers in FEU
which may benefit the students, teachers and future researchers. (1) Students, to be aware
that there are different functions on every utterance that their teacher may provide, (2)
Teachers, to be extra careful in assessing and giving the right speech acts to the students
based on the politeness strategies, and to be able to get the students' attention and desired
outcomes during the class, (3) Future Researchers, to get facts and pieces of evidences
about politeness principles used in teaching and learning process. This study can serve as
a reference in doing relevant studies.
Methodology
This section deals with the methods used in the study. It includes explanation of
the research design, locale and respondents of the study, instrument used, data gathering
and data analysis procedure.
Research Design
The researchers utilized mixed method, the quantitative and qualitative method.
Mixed method is a research design that involves theoretical hypothesis to guide the
direction of the collection and analysis of data and the mixture of qualitative and
quantitative data in a single study. The central premise is that the use of quantitative and
qualitative approaches in combination provides a better understanding of research
problems (Creswell and Plano Clark, 2007).
The researchers used quantitative method to identify the frequencies of FTA’s and
politeness strategies of the teachers. Also, qualitative method was used to provide an in-
depth explanation and analysis of the teacher’s FTA’s accompanied with Politeness
Strategies.
Furthermore, through combination of both data, the researcher will understand
and justify the depth and extent of the study, while balancing the characteristics of each
approach.
Research Locale
The study was conducted in Far Eastern University-Manila, specifically, in the
Institute of Arts and Sciences (IAS), English Department. Hence, the researchers chose
FEU-IAS as the research locale because of the availability of the participants for the
study. Likewise, as it is none cost-efficient and convenient.
Participants of the Study
The purpose of this study was to identify the politeness strategies employed by
the teachers inside the classroom. Therefore, the researchers chose Three English
Professors in the Institute of Arts and Sciences in the English department who agreed to
be video-taped and voice recorded.
First participant completed her Master’s Degree in Language and Literature at De
LaSalle University (DLSU); second participant finished her Master of Arts in Language
and Literature at Ateneo De Manila University (ADMU) at the same time a lawyer; and
the third participant completed her Master’s Degree in Curriculum and Instruction at Far
Eastern University. All of the participants were teaching language in the university for
more than fifteen years.

Consequently, the researchers selected the English Professors, since, they are in
the university for more than fifteen years and have been teaching language for a long
time. Thus, they have enough experience in teaching, moreover, they are skilful and
proficient in terms of language.
Research Instrument
The researchers employed video recording of the class proceedings for one period
along with classroom observation. They utilized a DSLR canon camera for video-taping
and an Oppo-F1S for voice recording.
After the gathering of data, the researchers transcribed and analyzed the data (see
Appendix B) which were validated by two experts in Linguistics (see Appendix C). There
were only two who validated the instrument since there was no more available professor
adequate in that particular field of linguistics.
Data Gathering Procedure
The researchers provided an approval letter that was given to the head of English
Department of Institute of Arts and Sciences for the validation and approval of the study
(see Appendix A). As the department head approved the conduct of the class observation,
the researchers started to approach chosen teachers in person to be participants in the
study. When the contacted teachers approved to be observed, video-taped and voice
recorded for an entire period of 1 hour and 30 minutes, the researchers provided each
participant a consent form (see Appendix D) that was filled out before the observation
and video recording started.
The researchers asked the teachers for their available time and schedule for the
class observation. They also asked permission if they would allow them to video-tape the
entire class. After the teacher gave their available dates, the researchers have set the date
and time they would conduct the class observation.
On the day of observation, the researchers were early to arrive in the classroom to
be able to set up all the equipment needed for the video recording. The recording started
from the beginning of the class until the end of the class period. All researchers were
present during the data gathering procedure.
Data Analysis Procedure
After gathering all the necessary information, the researchers made a verbatim
transcription from the video-taped and voice recorded data (see Appendix E). The study
employed quantitative and qualitative method, wherein descriptive statistics and content
were used. The data was then, analyzed and organized to distinguish the speech acts and
label each utterance into direct or indirect. The succeeding step was to separate all the
utterance from FTA’s and NFTA’s. Then lastly, identified the politeness strategies used
by each participant (see Appendix B).
The utterances were numbered according to when it was uttered to serve as the coding
system of the participants. Teacher 1or participant 1 is T1; teacher 2 is T2; and
teacher 3 is T3. The numbers beside T1, T2 and T3 were the numbered utterances of each
teacher. For instance, T1.81 means the 81st utterance of teacher 1. Moving on, the
analyzed data was then validated by experts in Linguistics (see Appendix C). Next,
quantitative method was utilized to determine the frequency and percentage distribution
of FTA’s and politeness strategies of the teachers. Then, a descriptive method was
employed to comprehensively explain each frequency of FTA’s and Politeness Strategies
provided in the tables.
Results and Discussion
This section presents the results in a form of tables and extends the findings with
examples of different utterances. The analyzed data were split into two parts in the results
section of the study: the politeness strategies and the face threatening acts.
I. Politeness Strategies
Table 1 presents the allotment of percentages of politeness strategies in each
participant.
Table 1
Frequency of the Politeness Strategies used by the Teachers

Total
Participants Indirect Positive Negative Bald- Number Of
On Utterances
Teacher 1 (T1) 17 (16%) 31 (29%) 6 (6%) 52 (49%) 106
Teacher 2 (T2) 11 (8%) 21 (15%) 37 (27%) 70 (50%) 139
Teacher 3 (T3) 13 (10%) 38 (30%) 26 (21%) 50 (39%) 127
Total 41 (11%) 90 (24%) 69 (19%) 172(46%) 372

Teacher 1(T1) has 106 total numbers of utterances which are distributed in the
four types of politeness strategies. T1 preferably give utterances in form of direct
imposition or the bald on-record strategy which was 49% out of all his utterances. While
negative politeness was the least strategy observed in the utterances which only has 6
percent distribution. Positive politeness places second highest strategy employed which is
29 percent. Lastly, indirect or off-record strategy has 16 percent (see Table 1).Below are
the examples:
A. Positive politeness strategy
T1.81. “So nice handwriting!”
The utterance above is considered positive politeness strategy since the teacher
(speaker) compliments the student’s (hearer) penmanship. In this situation, the teacher
asked all of the students to write their answers on the board in which he had noticed the
penmanship of the student as soon as the discussion started. This supports the statement
of Brown and Levinson (1987) that such kind of utterances which tends to notice the
student’s skill is called positive politeness strategy.
T1.88. “Everybody, that’s good.”
This statement is also an example of using positive politeness strategies since the
teacher commends the students’ work on the activity given to them. The teacher used the
word, “Everybody” as an in-group identity marker in expressing her pleasure to the
output of the students. The utterance achieved the hearer’s want to be liked or praised.
The study of Al-Azzawi (2011) claims the statements above that whenever a speaker
compliments the hearer; she informs them through expressing her appreciation.
B. Negative politeness strategy
T1.15. “Just to refresh our ancient minds in the case of forgetting, we're
not really going to move on in new lesson.”
The use of negative politeness strategies is present in the utterance because the
teacher made her intentions clear, however by trying to warn the students. This is through
giving prior statements to remind the students that there is still continuing discussion
about the recent lesson and they still have activities to finish afterwards. This also
matched the study of Gil-Salmon and Soler-Monreal (2009) in which the speaker assure
to soften the commitment to the truth of the proposition being stated.
T1.34. “It's possible that there's only one because some sentences
probably do not contain transitive verbs.”
The teacher gave this statement when the student was trying to clarify the possible
ideas that he may answer on the assessment. Negative politeness strategy was present
because the teacher has no definite answer to the question asked by the students. The
teacher let the students find the answer to his question/s alone and left the students a little
confused and unanswered. As stated in the study of Gil-Salmon and Soler-Monreal
(2009), negative politeness strategy can also be in a way of giving uncertain expressions
which allow the degree of doubt to the interpretations of the hearer.

C. Bald on-record strategy
T1. 42. “Try harder!”
The utterance was directly said to the student making it clear that bald on-record
strategy was used. The teacher gave a command without considering how the students
would react to the way the message was delivered. In this situation, the student was
having a hard time answering the activity however, the teacher tried to convince them
that they can do and accomplish the task in time. As well as, the utterance implies to do
analysis on the activity for them to get the right answer. The stand of this utterance was
from the study of Brown and Levinson (1987), whereas bald on-record strategy aims to
give command without adding group of words to conceal the objective of the speaker.
T1. 62. “No phones!”
It was evident that the utterance above showed the used of bald on-record strategy
because the teacher gave a command which constraint the student to use their mobile
phones. This happened when the teacher was discussing and she noticed that some of the
students were not paying attention rather were using their mobile phones in the classroom
which is prohibited as said in the classroom rules. The face was threatened when the
teacher stopped the students from using the phone and limiting the student’s personal
space without expecting any response. Hence, it claims the stand of Pschaid (1993) that
the relation between the status of the speaker to the hearer affects the type of utterance
that they use. The speaker with greater power tends to use bald on-record strategy to give
commands to the hearer having low power.

D. Indirect or Off-record strategy
T1.13. “There are lots of news to read.”
The teacher expressed her intention inexplicitly by giving factual yet debatable
remarks. So, instead of telling the student to read and be updated of the news and events
happening around the country, the teacher used indirect politeness strategy to avoid
getting the students into subjects. In this situation, the teacher was discussing and asking
questions about the recent event that happened after the two day class suspension. The
teacher was imposing that they must know what happened around the country without
directly offending any of the students. This supports the study of Yara (2010) that
indirectly implementing a command without threatening the face of the hearer is called
indirect politeness strategy.
T1. 92. “Anybody could read.”
This example also presented the use of indirect strategy because the teacher
encourages the student to recite their answers that were written on the board. Instead of
picking or pointing out names of the students to read in a respective group, the teacher
just gave a statement which would let the student volunteer or recite. This happened
when the teacher was asking every group to have a representative in reading their
answers that turned the students to respond to the request that was addressed to anyone.
Likewise the example above also aids the study of Yara (2010), wherein in direct
politeness strategy make demands through constructing their sentences in a way that
makes the hearers think of what could be the possible implication of the utterance.
Teacher 2(T2) has 139 total numbers of utterances which are distributed in the
four types of politeness strategies. Bald on-record strategy was also the prominent
strategy used in which there is 50 percent with 70 utterances in total. In negative
politeness, there are 37 utterances which have 27% from the analyzed speech. While
positive politeness, has only 21 utterances with15 percent. Also, indirect or off-record is
the least strategy observed in the analyzed utterances of T2 which has 11 utterances (see
Table 1).
The examples are presented as follows:
T2. 53. “Okay, correct.”
Through expressing the teacher’s agreement to the student’s discussion about the
lesson, this address the use of positive politeness strategy. In this situation, the teacher
was asking the students what they will write after giving their greetings to the reader of
their letters. One of the students answered the question which made the teacher give the
student credit for his answer. This was supported by the study of Abdul-Majeed (2009)
that one of the category in positive politeness strategy is seeking agreement, in which the
speaker approve or in favour to the opinion of the hearer, hence to satisfy the desire of the
hearer to be right.
T2. 64. “Wow!”
This is another example which shows positive politeness strategies because the
utterance was meant to give compliments to the student. The teacher expressed her
delight with the idea shared by the student. This happened when the teacher was
discussing the lessons and one of the students made a comment and shared his insights
about the lesson. If the utterance achieved the intent of the hearer, the speaker is praise.
As what Al-Azzawi (2011) claimed and cited the work of Herbert (1990), compliments
are considered as expressions of praise and admiration. However, the effectiveness of the
utterance or praise is lesser when the speaker and the hearer are not talking face to face.
T2. 78. “Sorry gentleman ha. Your future wife/wives have an option to use or
not to use your surname.”
Asking for apology before stating directly the implication of what the teacher was
telling about a certain idea is another form of employing negative politeness strategies.
The teacher expressed her sympathy towards the reaction of students specifically the men
who seemed to be shocked and disappointed. In this situation, the teacher was discussing
about the examples and option of women using the surnames of their partners in case the
surname looks or sounds disgusting. This was corroborated by the study of Holmes
(1989), that the term apology was restricted into expressions such as “sorry” and “I
apologize”, and this restore the social balance or agreement between the speaker and the
hearer.
T2. 62. “So just to be in the safe side, better not go to ‘attention’”.
Giving a statement first before pointing to order is also another form of demonstrating
negative politeness. It is because by making the students feel good and

conscious about a certain issue first will give the students the will to follow a command.
The utterance was also indirectly and minimally imposed because of using of the word
“attention”. This happened when the teacher was asking whether they could use a certain
phrase to address their intentions on selling the products through the letter that they were
supposed to write. This claim was substantiated by the study of Monsefi and Hadidi
(2015), that teachers used an affirmative in order to soften the utterance or request and
this minimizes the authority of the message.
T2. 90. “Go straight to the point.”
Bald on-record strategy was present in this utterance because the teacher directly
gave a command to the students without minimizing the imposition. The teacher directly
command the students to give the exact answer and the hearer’s face was threatened
because the hearer found it difficult to give the answers right away. In this situation, the
teacher asked the students to give the reasons why they were writing a letter to their
future costumers. This was backed up by the study of Brown and Levinson (1987) that
the reason why the speaker employed bald on-record strategy is when he wanted to
satisfy the face of the hearer and direct imperatives stand for the best representation of
the bald-on-record strategy, as cited by Fialová (2010).
T2. 136. “If you won’t email on 11:59 P.M., you are literally dead.”
The teacher made the command clear and straightforward making this utterance being
categorized to the use of bald-on record strategy. The utterance also tends to create
pressure and instils care to the hearer and a threat to the hearer’s face. This happened
when the students were asking about the deadline of the output that they needed to
submit. The study of Xiaohui (2016) conforms this claim, as she stated that the speaker is
using bald-on record if he is trying to say or imply urgency, or if the intention of the
speaker is for a particular condition.
T2. 95. “You know that’s why I like this class eh! You guys are a bit
witty.”
This statement presented indirect strategy because instead of telling the students
that the teacher felt bad about their behaviour, she just made a sarcastic comment to hide
the disappointment she had and as well to lessen the bad feeling that the students might
react. In this situation, the teacher was asking examples from the students and some of
them gave examples that were inappropriate to the lesson. This was affirmed by the study
of Xiaohui (2016) that sarcasm is classified in off-record strategy in which the speaker
delivered her utterances to the hearer in the most insincere way and is often ironic or not
what the speaker really meant.
T2. 104. “Shh. Good looking students from IARFA, IAS, and IABF.”
Sarcastic compliments is also a form of employing indirect strategy because
instead of directly telling the students to be quiet and listen, the teacher made the
structure of the sentence positive to catch their attentions. The teacher gave ironic
statement. This happened when the teacher was about to discuss and clarify something
and everyone was busy chatting with their group mates about the activity that they
needed to answer. The claim was supported by Xiaohui (2016) that this kind of utterances
concealed the application of politeness strategy, the speaker is not being straightforward
on what she really want to imply to the hearer.
Over all, teacher 3 (T3) has a total of 127 utterances which are distributed in the
four types of politeness strategies. Likewise, bald on-record strategy has the greatest
number of occurrence with 50 utterances (39%) on the analyzed speech. Followed by,
politeness strategy which has 30 percent allocation in all utterances. Meanwhile, negative
politeness strategy has 26 utterances (21%) and lastly, indirect or off-record has the least
number of strategies seen in the utterances of T3 that has only 10%, 13 utterances in
numbers (see Table 1).The examples are presented as follows:
T3.24. “Will you please keep your cellphone?”
Another way of demonstrating positive politeness is through the use of politeness
markers such as “Please”. Through the use of this politeness marker, it softens the giving
of commands. The structure of the sentence was also in a question form. In this situation,
the teacher was starting to discuss the lesson however he noticed that there are some
students that were not giving attention to what she was saying rather keep on using their
mobile phones. This reflects the study of Celce-Murcia and Larsen-Freeman (1999) (as
cited by Widyanti and Yulia2012) that phrasal modals such please, could, may, et.al. in
the sentence will allow the speaker to give the degree of possibility, certainty, politeness
and also directness to which is most likely present in positive politeness strategies.
T3.75. “So let's transform this one into a simple present tense.”
Positive politeness strategy can also be showed though giving inclusive
imperative statements. This is evident when the teacher included himself by using “let’s”
in the answers that they needed to discuss. Instead of pointing a person to do the task
alone, the teacher made sure that she would be part and get involved with it so that it
would lessen the imposition within the class. The teacher’s involvement through the
utterance also motivates the class or the hearer to respond and cooperate. This happened
when the teacher was discussing the lesson to the student and she wanted everyone to
participate in the formative assessment. This affirms the study of Yara (2010) in which
the speaker address directly to the hearer the invite to participate the request through
accepting the claims. This also supports the idea of Murcia and Larsen-Freeman (1999)
that statements involving the speaker by using “let” with “us” could often function as a
suggestion instead of a command and that it is an “exhortation to follow the speaker’s
instructions or to agree with the judgment that the speaker expresses” (pg.223).
T3.8. “Sorry, this is what you call technology failure.”
Expressing oneself to defend to a certain situation can also be a way of employing
negative politeness strategy. In the utterance above, the teacher expressed herself by
justifying in defence to what happened to the presentation that he needed to show using
the device available in the classroom. In this situation, the teacher was preparing for the
lesson that was on her computer. She tried to set it up unfortunately it did not work.
Moreover, the study of Brown and Levinson (1987) claims that using negative politeness
strategy can be in a form of apologizing and then followed by the desire to give
directions.
T2.137. “Don’t worry, I’ll write it on Thursday.”
Another way of demonstrating negative politeness strategy is through giving
sentiments first before implying. In this case, the teacher made an assurance that students
did not have to feel troubled about the task because she would make sure that the rubrics
and necessary details for the activity would be given to them. However, they still needed
to pass the activity on the deadline and the teacher would still check their work to
monitor the progress. In this situation, the teacher was announcing their final output for
the midterm and students were asking clarifications regarding the output. This agrees the
study of Gil-Salmon and Soler-Monreal (2009) which states that by impersonalizing the
intention of the utterance, it reduces the hearer’s commitment to claims.
T3.20. “You’re next. You have to think of your answers.”
Giving direct remarks is also another way of presenting the use of bald on-record strategy
and it is evident in the example given above. In this situation, the teacher was calling the
people in the classroom to write down their answers on the board. The student was not
even able to make his refusal on the command given to him because the whiteboard
marker was already given even when the hearer was not reciting. The student was caught
off-guard. This claims the study ofXiaohui (2016) that bald on-record strategy has the
intention on attacking the face of the hearer which happened in the given example.
T3.58. “That's wrong!”
The teacher expressed her disagreement in a very straightforward and clear way
thus, presenting the use of bald on-record politeness strategy. At that moment, the teacher
heard the answer of a student and gave her comment right away. This threatens the
hearer’s face because the teacher as the speaker opposed the answer. In this situation, the
students were asked to read and explain the answers they have written on the board. This
supports the study of Shing (2012) whereas bald on- record strategy is when the speaker
does not care of expressing his disapproval to the hearer. Hence, it does not maintain the
self-image of the hearer in the public.
T3.21. “Is there anyone here, who have extra whiteboard marker?”
The example above presented indirect strategy because instead of asking the
students to give the markers to her, she constructed the sentence in a question form to
give the implication that she needed a marker. The utterance also implied to ask anyone
from the hearers to comply the request that is being asked by teacher. This happened
when the teacher was about to discuss the lesson however, she did not have markers to
write down the things that he wanted to emphasize. This supports the study of Brown and
Levinson (1987) that in indirect politeness strategies, speaker tries to give a command
through giving hints instead of directly telling the intention of talking with the hearer.
T3.34. “Let's go with the best student in class, best actor!”
This statement employs indirect strategy because it may seem to appear as a
compliment however, the intention is to give a direct command to the students. It also
threatens the face of the student because his will to be free was being subjected.
Moreover, the teacher made the structure of the sentence into a positive form to lessen
and give highlight to the students. Also, the teacher was even laughing after saying it to
the students that somehow made the students more comfortable discussing her
explanations. The sentence was also sarcasm because the student was not able to comply
the teacher’s expectation. In this situation, the student was asked by the teacher to explain
their answers on the board. Luckily, this “bibo” student was the next to answer. This
reflects the study of Xiaohui (2016) wherein indirect politeness strategy can be seen
when it covers the intention of the speaker through mocking the hearer. In addition, the
idea of Murcia and Larsen-Freeman (1999) about the use of “let” with “us” supports this
because it is an “exhortation to follow the speaker’s instructions or to agree with the
judgment that the speaker expresses” (pg.223).
Moreover, the concept of politeness strategies are always present in the utterances
of the teachers. Thus, explains why politeness plays an important role in the interaction
between the teacher and the students. (Fang, Lingling and Liu, 2014).
II. Face Threatening Acts
Table 2 presents the distribution of percentages of face threatening acts and non-face
threatening acts for each participant.
Table 2
Frequency of the occurrence of Face Threatening and Non-Face Threatening

Acts
Participants FTA NFTA Total number of
Utterances
Teacher 1 (T1) 89 (84%) 17 (16%) 106
Teacher 2 (T2) 120 (86%) 19 (14%) 139
Teacher 3 (T3) 107 (84%) 20 (16%) 127
Total 316 (85%) 56 (15%) 372
As cited by Chen (2017), Scollon and Scollon (1995: p. 38) claimed that “there is
no faceless communication”. In addition, Brown and Levinson (1987) indicated that
every speech act is a Face Threatening Act (FTA). FTA’s are the acts that neglect the
hearer’s sense of being respected (Patriage, n.d).
In analyzing the over-all utterances of all the participants (T1, T2, and T3) the study
found out that face threatening acts (FTAs) is more prominent than non-face threatening
acts (NFTAs). Both positive and negative face threatening phenomena can be seen in the
utterances of the teachers. Negative face is where the person desires to be autonomous,
free and not imposed by others, e.g promise, order or request, suggestions or advice,
reminding, and or threats or warning or challenge. On the other hand, positive face is
where a person needs to be accepted and liked by others, e.g disapproval,

criticism, complaints, accusations, contradictions, disagreements, and or expression of
emotion. (Brown and Levinson, 1987).
Teacher 1 has a total of 106 utterances where 84% or 89 utterances are allotted to
FTA’s while NFTA’s has only allocated 16% or 17 utterances in number. T1 committed
FTA’s on both negative and positive face. Examples are as follows:
Threat to the positive face:
Expression of emotion: T1.11. “You should have additional knowledge!”
The utterance that was shown above was said during the discussion of the sudden
class suspensions for two days. It tried to command and question the hearers’ existing
knowledge, which threatens the hearers’ positive face because the speaker (teacher)
showed that he was dismayed of the students’ unawareness about what is happening in
the Philippines during that time. This was supported by the study of Celce-Murcia &
Larsen-Freeman (1999), that the modal “should” is usually used to express advisability
and it also functions to show expectation for the present, past and future meaning.
Likewise, Gil (2012) mentioned that, hearers’ positive face was threatened because of the
assumptions of the speaker to the hearer. Therefore, the speaker felt downcast when she
knew that the hearer has only minimal knowledge about the topic since the hearer cannot
answer the speaker’s question.

Disapproval: T1.103. “No! It is not necessary.”
This utterance tends to disapprove with the hearer’s question regarding the lesson
they were discussing whereas she tried to give imposition on the question that did need a
reply. The disapproval of the speaker (teacher) threatened the positive face of the hearer
who expected to get an agreement. In the statement above, the hearer (student) tried to
clarify something about their discussion of answers with the prior activity. Thus, it aids
the study of Ambuyo, Indede and Karanja (2011) that FTAs can be criticism, accusation
or objections.
Threat to the negative face:
Promise: T1.38. “I’ll be back!”
The speaker states a future action in which the hearer should be involved. Hence,
the hearer’s negative face was threatened because the teacher was imposing something to
be accomplished by the students when he returned. The utterance above reflects from the
study of Gil (2012), wherein commissive speech acts like promises, basically threatens
the hearers’ negative face and the speaker himself, imposes a future action that would
certainly affect the hearer.In this situation, the speaker is implying the students to read
and analyze both given two letters since their lesson was about technical writing in
which, they must identify the sentences in active and passive voice. The statement of the
speaker is an FTA because the students were not given a chance to have much longer
time to search and find for the appropriate answers for their work and to finish the given
activity right after the class.

Reminding: T1.105. “Be very careful, be very careful with this thing.”
The utterance above sought to direct the hearers in writing their activities. In this
situation, the speaker limited the hearers in their writing techniques through reminding
the guidelines. The hearer’s negative face was threatened because the speaker was
implying something in which it restricted the hearer’s personal freedom yet the speaker
was just being concern that hearers’ may commit a common mistake in writing a letter.
This supports the assertion of Hatipoglu (2007) as cited in the study of Chen (2017) that
polite behaviour can be defined as the use of verbal or nonverbal strategies that consider
the hearers’ feelings by showing concern for their face needs. The way that the speaker
uttered the statement was just showing concern for the hearer.
Teacher 2 has 120 FTA’s (86%) out of 139 utterances and 19 NFTA’s(14%). See
given examples below:
Threat to the positive face:
Criticism: T2. 117. “You know, you people in Morayta are very sloppy.
You’re so suplado.”
The context of this utterance was during the discussion of the lesson and the hearers’ kept
on insisting that they would not accept a job to someone who was popular just because of
having too much confidence, especially in media. Yet, the speaker was explaining that
time would come they would need to because maybe someday he would become one of
the richest men in the country. The hearer’s positive face was threatened because the
speaker dispraised them yet it was less face threatening because the utterance
was addressed to “people in morayta” though she was only pertaining to a specific group
of students in FEU.
In connection with this, Brown and Levinson (1987) classified different types of
politeness strategies for reacting to FTAs that follows three sociological factors: 1.) the
relative power of the hearer over the speaker; 2.) the social distance between the speaker
and the hearer; and 3.) the ranking of the imposition in performing the FTA whereas,
considering the context of the statement above, it falls under the second sociological
factor in which the social distance between the speaker and the hearer helped lessen the
FTA probably because the hearer have met the speaker several times which makes the
hearer comfortable though, the authority of the speaker is still there.
Accusation: T2. 131. “I know they’re cheat mates. Sa kanila kana.”
The utterance was said when the speaker (teacher) divided the hearers (students)
into groups for their activity and two students caught his attention because they did not
want to be in different groups. The given statement above supports the statement of Gil
(2012) that, the hearer's positive face were threaten and the speaker assumes about
hearers' capabilities or even in social situation among others since the speaker assumed
right away that they were really cheaters with no concrete evidence.
Threat to the negative face:
Request: T2. 2. “Okay, please be seated.”

After the opening prayer the sample statement above was uttered by the speaker,
likewise the hearer’s negative face was threatened because the teacher was giving
imposition for everyone to be seated. Jaszczolt (2002) as cited by Chen (2017) indicated
that FTAs may threaten the hearer and the speaker by making requests and suggestions,
by criticizing and advising, or by expressing guilt and thanks. The utterance given above
is an utterance giving request to the hearer, thus, this linguistic act may be inherently
threatening the hearer.
Challenge: T2. 56. “Why wouldn’t you? Would you dare?”
The speaker threatened the hearer’s negative face because she was trying to
challenge her students into something that was inappropriate for them to do. This
utterance was given because the teacher was trying to give example about the lesson and
he wanted to know whether the students had enough knowledge about the etiquette in
writing a letter. Although the utterance committed was less face threatening to the hearer
because of the harmonious relationship between the teacher and the student as supported
by Senowarasito (2013) in order to lessen the threat to face in class interactions, teachers
could establish friendly facial expressions.
Teacher 3 has 127 total utterances wherein 107 utterances or 84% was portioned
to FTA’s much with NFTA’s that has only 20 utterances or 16%. See sample utterances
below:
Threat to Positive face:
Expression of emotion: T3.5. “The feeling is mutual.”

The hearer’s positive face was threatened because the speaker does not care about
the “public self-image” of the hearer. In this utterance, the teacher embarrassed a
particular student in front of his fellow classmates. This is a very FTA for the hearer
because the teacher did not even consider the feeling of the embarrassed student, this
supports the study of Peng et., al. (2014) as cited by Cheng (2017), which shows that
teachers and the students have a greater distance on each other and the teacher still
manifesting his authority inside the classroom. Which may likewise indicate the student's
performance, because the greater the distance and the authority of the teacher, the
possibility that the command was being responded but the hearer (students) felt awkward
after the occurrence.
Threat to negative face:
Order: T3.10. “Can you just pull this up?”
The speaker was threatening the hearer’s negative face because he was giving
command yet it was a less threatening acts since the speaker used the modal “can”.
According to Azar and Hagen (2009) the modal “can” may express an ability or
possibility, informal permission or informal polite request ( as cited by Widyanti and
Yulia, 2016 ,p.15) . The statement uttered is asking for permission which is rejected by
the hearer.
Order: T3.16. “Yes please, write, yes you!”
The statement uttered by the speaker (teacher) has used politeness, the directive strategy.
The utterance itself was polite yet in the context of the given statement, the
teacher directly pointed a student and gave a white board marker for him to answer on the
board. The speaker was obviously imposing something to the hearer with the aid of non-
verbal actions. This supports the study of Brown and Levinson (1978, 1987) which to
some extent coincide with the notions of Locker and Watts (2008) that the degree of
potential threat to the face is based on the perceived social distance between the
interactants (as cited by Ambuyo, Indede, and Karanja, 2011). The hearer’s negative face
was being threatened because of the imposition though it became less threatening because
of the social distance of the interactants.
In summary, teachers use different types of politeness strategy such as Indirect
strategy, Positive Politeness, Negative Politeness and Bald On-Record Strategy to
communicate to the students inside the classroom. They conveyed words in a totally
different manner, but their intention was the same. They differ on how they say things
towards the students, their facial expression, the tone of their voice and their body
movements. These non-verbal signals sometimes contradict on what they say.
Based on the results, it is evident that the teachers frequently used bald on-record
strategy. They are straightforward in terms of giving instructions or answering the
questions of the students but negative effect may not be seen to the students. For instance,
when the teacher said “shut up!”; yet, she is smiling or the tone of his voice is soft, the
students might not be offended because they already know that the teacher is just kidding
or in not so serious type. Students and teachers are already comfortable with each other
that they can make jokes, laugh around and exchange conversation freely without feeling
any pressure. The manner of expression or facial expression and the tone of their voice
have a bigger factor in this matter. The teachers make the classroom fun and conducive to
learning, but still have the authority and power to control the students.
Moreover, the concept of face threatening acts is evident all throughout the
analyzing of gathered data. According to Brown and Levinson, positive and negative face
exists universally in human culture. In social interactions, formal or informal, face
threatening acts are at times inevitable based on the terms of conversation.
Based on the results of this study, generally, FTA is more prominent in the
utterances of the teachers which have 85% or 316 occurrences of utterances while non-
face threatening acts has only 56 utterances or 15% (see table 2).
Based on the foregoing results, the following conclusions were drawn:
1. The utterances of the teachers in tertiary level are predominantly bald
on-record strategy because probably college students are open-minded
and mature thinkers considering they are already young adults. This also
contradicts the study of Fang, Linling, and Liu (2014) which showed
that there was an emphasis in using positive politeness strategy to avoid
impositions and to save the face of the hearer.
2. The result of utterances by the teachers are bald on-record strategy, for
instance, they give instructions in a direct way without offending the
face of the students. This is possibly because the affective filter of the
class is low. In which in Krashen's affective filter hypothesis (1985)

suggests that language learners might be distracted and would not be
able to absorb what they should learn in class because of their teacher’s
uncongenial manners or classmates’ aggressive and competitive
attitudes. Another is the length of the relationship, the openness with
each other, and the age difference between the teachers to the students.
3. The non-verbal actions of the teachers can potentially indicate whether
the utterance is threatening. Also, most of the time, the manner of
delivery of the utterance of the teacher is soft and gentle. This shows
that the utterances of the teachers do not define their character.
4. Most of the presented utterances by the teachers are face threatening
acts which opposes the study of Victoria (2012), Fang, Linling and Liu
(2014) and Sulu (2015) that contain both of positive politeness strategy
to maintain the friendly environment of the class since the teachers in
this study tend to make impositions and learning requires
communication that gives the impression of students’ mandatory
cooperation with the teacher.
5. Teachers maintain their authority inside the classroom in giving
command, asking request, disapproval, criticism, etc. which supports
the findings of the study of Destura-Madriaga (2007), that the power of
the teacher is considered to be linked in the using of fierce or
threatening directives to instill authority in the classroom.

Based on the conclusions of the study, the following recommendations are
forwarded:
1. Students could be enlightened and be aware that the utterances of
the teachers follow a certain strategy and the categorizations may
vary depending on how the implications and intentions of the
teacher are structured into sentences.
2. The results of the study could be introduced to teachers in the
academe, students who are currently taking AB-Linguistics or
Education course majoring in English to understand the meaning
and effects of utterances in small segment of conversation in the
classroom.
3. Teachers of Linguistics subjects could introduce the different
approaches in discourse analysis in order to give meaning on the
different utterances occurred in verbal interaction.
4. It is also recommended that further studies on discourse and
conversational analysis will be conducted to know the different
meaning of utterances and even to understand the complexities of
language in a verbal interaction.

References
Abdul-Majeed, R. (2009). The realization of positive politeness strategies in language:

The politeness theory of Brown and Levinson. Vol. 20 (2) 2009. J. of College of
Education for Women. Retrieved from www.schribd.com
Ambuyo, B., Indede, F., and Karanja, P. (2011). Face threatening acts and standing
orders: ‘politeness’ or ‘politics' in the question time discussions of the Kenyan
Parliament.International Journal of Humanities and Social Science. Retrieved
from http://www.ijhssnet.com
Aporbo, R. (2014). Face-threatning acts among Filipino interactants. University of

Southeastern Philippines. Retrieved from: www.academia.edu
Al-Azzawi, J. (2011). Compliments and positive politeness strategies. The Open

Educational College. Retrieved from: www.iasj.net
Birner, B. (2013). Introduction to Pragmatics. Pp.200-202
Brown, P. and Levinson, S. (1987). Politeness: Some universals in language. Pp. 94-
227.Retrieved from: www.books.google.com.ph
Celce-Murcia, M. and Larsen-Freeman, D (1999). The grammar book: An ESL/EFL

teacher’s course (2nd ed). New York: Heinle & Heinle publishers.
Chen, J. (2017). Face-threatening acts: Conflict between a teacher and students in EFL
classroom. Open Journal of Modern Linguistics, 7,151-166. Retrieved from
www.filescirp.com
Creswell, J., & Plano Clark, V. (2007). Designing and conducting mixed methods
research. Thousand Oaks, CA:S Sage. Retrieved from https://www.deakin.edu.au
Destura-Madriaga, J. (2007). Politeness on teacher's directives. Far Eastern University

Language and Literature Journal Pp.94-102
Elmianvari and Kheirabasi. (2013). The study of EFL students‟ requests based on
politeness theory. Journal of Language Teaching and Research, Academy
Publisher Manufactured in Finland. Retrieved from:
www.academypublication.com
Fang, X., Lingling C. and Liu, P. (2014). A case study of college teacher's politeness
strategies in EFL classroom. Vol. 4. No. 1. Theory and Practice in Language
Studies. Pp.110-114
Gil, J.M. (2012). Face threatening speech acts and face-invading speech acts: An
interpretation of politeness phenomena. International Journal of Linguistics
Vol.4 No.2. Retrieved from www.macrothink.org.
Gil-Salmon, L., and Soler-Monreal, C.(2009).Interacting with the reader: Politeness

strategies in engineering research article discussions. International Journal of
English Studies. Retrieved from: www.um.es/ijes
Hadidi, Y. and Mosefi, M. (2015). Male and female EFL teachers’ politeness strategies
in oral discourse and their effects on the learning process and teacher-student
interaction. International Journal on Studies in English Language and Literature
(IJSELL). Retrieved from: arcjournals.org
Hill, B. (2008). Pragmatic language. 38 Derby Street Kingswood NSW Austrilia.

Retrieved from http://therabee.com
Holmes, J. (1989). Sex differences in apologies: One aspect of communicative

competence. Victoria University of Wellington. Retrieved from
www.researchgate.net
Korta, K and Perry, J. (2015). Pragmatics. Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy.

Retrieved from: https://plato.stanford.edu
Li, E. (2008). What is Pragmatics?.Fu Jen Catholic University. Retrieved from

http://www.eng.fju.edu.tw
Neill (2012). The speech act theory of J.L. Austin. Retrieved from https://conorneill.com
Paltridge (n.d). Politeness theory and discourse: Chapter 3: Introduction to discourse

analysis. Retrieved from http://fac.ksu.edu.sa
Pschaid, P. (1993). Language and power in office. Gunter NarrVerlagTübingen. Vol.7.

Retrieved from: http://books.google.com.ph
Salvesen, K. (2015). Politeness strategies in requests by Norwegian learners of English

in comparison with native English speakers. Hawaii Pacific University, USA.
Retrieved from: www.hpu.edu
Searle, J. (1969). Speech Acts: An essay in the philosophy of Language. Retrieved from:
www.books.google.com
Senowarsito, S. (2013). Politeness strategies in teacher-student interaction in an EFL

classroom context. Vol.24. No.1. Retrieved from: www.journal.teflin.org
Shing, S. (2012). Politeness in mentor-mentee talk. International Journal of Human

Sciences. Vol. 9. Issue. 2. Retrieved from: www.j-humansciences.com/ojs
Soheim, Y. (2014). Teacher politeness: A cross-cultural comparison in ESL

classrooms. The American University in Cairo. Retrieved from: dar.aucegypt.edu
Sulu, A. (2015). Teacher’s politeness in EFL class. International Online Journal of

Education and Teaching. Retrieved from: iojet.org
Victoria, M. (2012). Teacher talk and managing social relations in Philippine

university classrooms. Vol.15. English Language Teacher Education and
Development Journal. Retrieved from: www.elted.net
Widyanti, E. R., and Yulia, M. F. (2016) student on modals Used in Test Your Say of The
Jakarta Post. Vol. 16 No. 1.English Language Education Study Program.
Retrieved from: www.ejournals.usd.ac.id
Xiaohui, Y. (2016). Face negotiation in subtitling (Chinese-English): Politeness moves

and audience response. Retrieved from: https://books.google.com.ph
Yara, A. (2010). The revolutionary Arab world from a corpus-pragmatic perspective:

Tunisia, Egypt and Libya. Retrieved from: https://books.google.com

Saving The Face

Încărcat de

Informații document

Titlu original

Drepturi de autor

Formate disponibile

Partajați acest document

Partajați sau inserați document

Opțiuni de partajare

Vi se pare util acest document?

Este necorespunzător acest conținut?

Drepturi de autor:

Formate disponibile

Saving The Face

Încărcat de

Drepturi de autor:

Formate disponibile

FAR EASTERN UNIVERSITY

INSTITUTE OF EDUCATION UNDERGRADUATE STUDIES 1

listener. The ability to understand pragmatics is essential in communicating with people

is; and how appropriate it is to the given situation (Hill, 2008).

Austin’s Speech Act Theory is a subfield of pragmatics which involves the

saying it (Neill, 2012).

declaration, e.g. baptism or marriage.

Politeness plays an important role in communication as it serves as the ethical

Politeness Strategies was developed to avoid Face Threatening Acts (FTAs).

to be accepted and liked by others (Brown and Levinson, 1987).

interactions. Politeness has four strategies:

understating, overstating, using tautologies, using contradictions, showing irony,

over-generalizing, displacing the hearer, and being incomplete and using of

group identity markers, e.) seeking agreement, f.) avoiding disagreement,

reciprocity, and o.) give gifts to H.

Salvesen (2015) emphasized the politeness strategies found in requests made by

Another study conducted in American University in Cairo by Soheim (2014),

undergraduate Rhetoric and Composition department at an American university in Egypt.

Meanwhile, Elmianvari and Kheirabadi (2013) agreed that politeness strategies

the negative face.

personal and social development. He observed and video-recorded two 90-minute

students’ limitation on their linguistic ability has a contribution in choosing different

responses from participants, and identifying the utterances of disagreement in responses

English was only used as a medium.

could lead to more comfortable language learning environment.

In the Philippines, selected classes in four educational institutions were observed

was done by audio-recording 25 hours classroom interaction, with 12 hours from MA

Another study on politeness was by Destura-Madriaga (2007) wherein she

In the meantime, Aporbo (2014), showed Face-threatening acts among Filipino

speech acts invade in S’s and H’s faces.

FEU Teachers Politeness Strategies

theoretical framework encompassing positive, negative, and image repair politeness

enhancing effective communication; others are a ritual requirement by the standing

Moreover, Chen’s study (2017) entitled Face-Threatening Acts: Conflict between

were provided at the end of the study.

interaction of selected FEU English teachers.

politeness strategy of the teachers in Far Eastern University (FEU).

the following questions:

1) What are the politeness strategies employed by the teachers?

a reference in doing relevant studies.

and data analysis procedure.

qualitative approaches in combination provides a better understanding of research

problems (Creswell and Plano Clark, 2007).

FEU Teachers Politeness Strategies

Furthermore, through combination of both data, the researcher will understand

The study was conducted in Far Eastern University-Manila, specifically, in the

study. Likewise, as it is none cost-efficient and convenient.

Participants of the Study

be video-taped and voice recorded.

First participant completed her Master’s Degree in Language and Literature at De

more than fifteen years.

FEU Teachers Politeness Strategies

proficient in terms of language.

and an Oppo-F1S for voice recording.

adequate in that particular field of linguistics.

Data Gathering Procedure

the researchers started to approach chosen teachers in person to be participants in the

and video recording started.

and time they would conduct the class observation.

present during the data gathering procedure.

Data Analysis Procedure

by each participant (see Appendix B).

employed to comprehensively explain each frequency of FTA’s and Politeness Strategies