Investigating Politeness Strategies Presented in Iraqi Sixth Primary’s English Student Textbook

دراسة استراتيجيات التأدب الواردة في كتاب اللغة الانجليزية للصف السادس الابتدائي العراقي

معمر قدامه يونس          

وزارة التربية،الكلية التربوية المفتوحة ، مركز  نينوى الدراسي، الموصل , العراق

المستخلص

الدراسة الحالية هي محاولة لتحليل استراتيجيات التأدب المقدمة في محتوى كتاب اللغة الإنكليزية المدرسي المقدم للتلاميذ في المرحلة الابتدائية. عادةً، لا يمكن تقديم التأدب، كموضوع لغوي، للتلاميذ في هذا المستوى من التعلم بشكل مباشر. بدلاً من ذلك، يتم تقديمه بشكل غير مباشر في جميع أنحاء محتوى الكتاب المدرسي لبناء شعور بالأدب اللغوي. هذه الدراسة هي محاولة لتحليل استراتيجيات التأدب المتنوعة المُقدمة للتلاميذ من خلال محادثات الكتاب المدرسي، ومعرفة مدى تعرضهم لها. تهدف الدراسة إلى تحديد استراتيجيات التأدب المضمنة في محادثات كتاب اللغة الإنجليزية للصف السادس الابتدائي، وتحديد استخدامها وتكرارها. تفترض الدراسة أن الكتاب المدرسي يستخدم استراتيجيات تأديب مختلفة و تُعرض بشكل غير مباشر على متعلم اللغة الإنكليزية. تحدد الدراسة وتحلل هذه الاستراتيجيات باستخدام نموذج براون وليفينسون (1987) لاستراتيجيات التأدب مع أخذ كتاب اللغة الإنجليزية لمرحلة السادس الابتدائي كمصدر للبيانات. تكمن قيمة الدراسة في أنها تحاول تحليل ما إذا كان الكتاب المدرسي يقدم (أو يهمل) بعض استراتيجيات التأدب على حساب أخرى.وخلصت الدراسة إلى أن الاقتراض المعجمي يمكن أن يكون أداة فعّالة في سياقات معينة إلا أن الإفراط في استخدامه يؤثر سلبًا على وضوح الترجمة وجودتها في حالات أخرى.

الكلمات المفتاحية: التأدب، التداولية، براون ، ليفينسون ، اللغة الإنكليزية للعراق

1-Introduction

    Politeness is a crucial aspect of human interaction, influencing social harmony and effective communication. It involves strategies used by individuals to maintain positive relationships, avoid misunderstandings, and demonstrate respect and consideration towards others. In daily life, politeness manifests in various ways, including verbal expressions, body language, and adherence to social norms. The choice of politeness strategies depends on factors such as power relations, social distance, and the level of imposition of a given speech act. Cognitive and social sciences have found that human interactions are primarily influenced by social norms, which are profound social and cultural standards(1).

In Iraq, where Arabic is the dominant language, teaching politeness strategies is essential for the linguistic and social development. As Iraqis interact more frequently with speakers of other languages through globalization, media, and education, there is a growing need for pupils to develop an awareness of different politeness strategies in English. Incorporating politeness strategies into language education helps pupils improve their pragmatic competence, which is the ability to use language appropriately in different social contexts. Without sufficient instruction on politeness strategies, pupils may unintentionally appear rude, overly formal, or too informal when communicating with others, particularly in cross-cultural interactions.

Educational approaches to politeness should involve implicit learning through role-playing, interactive discussions, and exposure to authentic dialogues. Teachers play a crucial role in modeling and reinforcing politeness strategies by providing constructive feedback and creating an environment where respectful communication is valued. Teaching methodology emphasizes didactic communication and teacher-student relationships, moving away from unidirectional communication and focusing on dynamics and symmetrization of communication among educational individuals, regardless of learning level (2).

2. 2. Literature Review

2.1 Politeness Definitions

      The study of politeness in language draws greatly on some pragmatic theories such as Searle’s speech acts theory (1975) and Grice’s cooperative principle theory (1975). As to start, it is a priority to consider some politeness definitions and clearly explain the term.

Lakoff (1979) (3) uses a social dimension in defining politeness that she sees as a behavior developed in societies to minimize social interaction frictions. Leech (1980) (4) states that politeness is a “strategic conflict avoidance which can be measured in terms of the degree of effect put into the avoidance of a conflict situation, and the establishment and the maintenance of comity”.

Brown and Levinson (1987) (5) explains politeness as techniques or strategies employed in communication allowing it to take place between potentially aggressive interlocutors. It is “something that is emotionally invested, and can be lost, maintained, or enhanced, and must be constantly attended to in interaction”. Fraser (6) views politeness as unmarked behavior or norm and a way of ensuring that a certain behavior or interaction is socially acceptable.

Thomas (1995) (7) differentiates between politeness as a “real-world goal” which has no relation to pragmatic studies, politeness seen as deference or register which are phenomena connected to politeness but not pragmatics, politeness as a surface level phenomenon; and politeness as a pragmatic phenomenon. It is only the latter that is interested in tackling politeness within a different pragmatic framework whether “conversational maxim” suggested by Leech, “face-management” suggested by Brown and Levinson or “conversation contract view” by Fraser. Yule (1996)  (8) defines politeness as “the means employed to show awareness of another person’s face”.

Richards and Schmidts (2002) (9) define politeness as the way “languages express the social distance between speakers and their different role relationships”. Similar to Brown and Levinson’s definition, Chapman (2011) (10) claims that politeness is a term used to explain a behavior that shows awareness and consideration for others.

To sum it up, politeness is a pragmatic feature attached to an utterance and it embodies the effort put to soften the effect of this utterance for the hearer or the speaker or both by respecting their face.

2.2 Face and Face Wants

      When discussing politeness, the term face pops up into discussion as face and politeness are directly connected terms. Goffman (1967) (11) was first who introduced the term as “the positive value a person effectively claims for himself” during a certain communication behavior in social interaction. Building on Goffman’s attribute, Brown and Levinson (1987) (5) divide face into two aspects: “positive face” and “negative face”.

Negative face: the want of every ‘competent adult member’ that his actions be unimpeded by others.

Positive face: the want of every member that his wants be desirable to at least some others.

(Brown and Levinson, 1987) (5)

Thomas (1995) (7) defines face as “every individual’s self-image. This image can be damaged, maintained or enhanced through interaction with others”. Similarly, Yule (1996) (8) states that “face means the public self-image of a person. It refers to the emotional and social sense of self that everyone has and expects everyone else to respect”. He also explains that negative face is “the need to be independent, to have a freedom of actions and not to be imposed on by others”. He also sheds light on the fact that the word “negative” does not imply negativity in the sense of the word but it is just an opposite case for positive politeness. For him, “positive politeness” is “the need to be accepted, even liked by others”. He summarizes the two by “being independent” and “being connected” respectively.

Chapman (2011) (10) claims that Brown and Levinson’s (1985) (5) positive face is very similar to Goffman’s account of positive social value. It is “the desire to look good or to appear to be liked and appreciated” while on the other side their negative face is close to Lakoff’s notion that it is important to give your hearers options and not to impose on them if politeness is at work. Briner (2013) (12) explains that each person has a positive and negative face. Positive face is “the desire for interaction and solidarity with others” and negative face is the “desire to be autonomous, to be respected, and in effect, to be left alone.

2.3 Face Saving Acts (FSAs) and Face Threatening Acts (FTAs)

       After tackling face wants, now it is a fact that an emphasis should be put on these wants in order to achieve face-saving environment for participants involved in an interaction.  Yet, it is an ideal situation that cannot be considered as the unmarked situation of all interactions.  Some illocutionary acts are threatening in nature.

Yule (1996: 8) claims that “people behave as if their expectations concerning their public self-image, or their face wants, will be respected.  If a speaker says something that represents a threat to another individual’s expectations regarding self-image, it is described as face threatening act”.  Possibly, the speaker could have the opportunity to lessen the effect of a possible FTA and in this case it would be a FS strategy employed in interaction. Birner (2013) (12) states that FTAs “are those acts that might be seen as a threat to the hearer’s self-image”.

Brown and Levinson (1987) (5) divided FTAs into two major aspects: (1) whose face is being threatened (the speaker or the hearer or both) and what type of face is being threatened (positive or negative face).  They distinguished the kinds of face threatened.  An act could threaten the hearer’s negative face as: orders, suggestions, remindings, threats, offers, promises and complements.  However, an act could threaten the positive face of the hearer, such as: disapproval, criticism, insults, disagreement, expressions of violent emotions, irreverence, bringing bad news, raising divisive topics, non-cooperation in an activity, and use of address’ terms and so on.

Brown and Levinson 1987. (5) also distinguished face threats that offend the negative face of the speaker as in: expressing thanks, acceptance of thanks or apology, excuses, acceptance of an offer, responses and unwilling promises. Moreover, some FTA could damage the speaker positive face as in apologies, acceptance of a compliment, breakdown of physical control, self-humiliation, acting stupid, self-contradicting, confessions, claiming responsibility, non-control over an emotion and so on.

Chapman (2011) (10) emphasizes on the fact that “with two participants involved in any interaction (the speaker and the hearer) and with two types of face to be considered for each, we ended up with four different types of pressure”.

Table -1- Types of Pressure

(Chapman, 2011:10)

2.4 Brown and Levinson’s FTAs Superstrategies for Politeness

        Brown and Levinson list a set of possible superstrategies a speaker could adopt to perform a FTA. They (1987:) state that “any rational agent will seek to avoid these FTAs, or will employ certain strategies to minimize the threat”. A speaker find him/herself under at least three wants:

1. The want to communicate the content of FTA x
2. The want to be efficient or urgent
3. The want to maintain H’s face to any degree.

 (Brown and Levinson, 1987) (5)

The following diagram is suggested by Brown and Levinson for possible superstrategies a speaker could use in communication when s/he finds themselves in a position to perform a FTA.

Diagram -1- (adopted from Brown and Levinson, 1987: (5)

An actor in a certain interaction has to make a decision from the very beginning whether to perform a FTA or not. If the decision is made to perform the FTA, the speaker will have four options to perform it, namely without redressive action “baldly” or with redressive action (with positive or negative politeness) and those three strategies are all on record. The fourth strategy is off record which is the strategy in which the speaker sees that the threat is too great and decides to say things indirectly (Thomas, 1996) (7).

The off record strategy is the case when the speaker is unwilling to ask for something directly as in “Uh, I forgot my pen” or “I wonder where I put my pen”. It is the least direct strategy therefore the most on record polite one. However, the speaker could ask for it directly as in “give me a pen” or “lend me your pen” which is considered a FTA performed with no redressive action “baldly”. Using ‘please” and “would you” would still keep it considered as bald on record but with “mitigating devices”. Yet, The speaker could also perform on record FTA but with redressive action paying attention to the hearer’s positive politeness as in “Hey, buddy, I’d appreciate it if you’d let me use your pen” or to the hearer’s negative face as in “could you lend me a pen” or “I’m sorry to bother you, but can I ask for a pen or something?” (Yule, 1996) (8).

Brown and Levinson (1987) (5) summarizes the payoffs of all superstrategies as follows:

On record payoffs

1. Clarity, perspicuousness
2. Demonstrable non-manipulativeness

Bald on record (non-redressed) payoff

Efficiency

Plus-redress payoff

1. Positive politeness: to satisfy H’s positive face, in some respect
2. Negative politeness: to satisfy H’s negative face, to some degree

Off record payoffs

1. S can satisfy negative face to a degree greater than that afforded by the negative politeness strategy.
2. S can avoid the inescapable accountability, the responsibility for his action, that on-record strategies entail.

Brown and Levinson, 1987: (5)

3. 3. Methedology and Data Analysis

3.1. Methodology

      The tool to be used for the current study is Brown and Levinson’s (5) politeness model as it could account for the different politeness strategies presented in the textbook. To save time and effort, the analysis will focus the attention on the hearer’s face threating acts (FTAs) superstrategies excluding the speaker’s FTAs.

3.2. Data Collection

       The analysis corpus of the current study is the conversations (between two or more actors) found in sixth primary’s Iraqi English student (pupil’s) textbook. The textbook consists of eight units and each unit contains eight lessons (except for unit 4 and 8 which are revision units and consist of only 4 lessons each). The revision units are excluded from the analysis as they do not present new language content to the learner. Six units of the book are subject to analysis for the current research. The study is limited to the conversations found in the student textbook “pupil’s book” (excluding exercises, tasks, narratives and grammar bits found in the textbook). It is important to mention that this study is not considering the “homework book” in its analysis.

3.3 The Analysis of Politeness Strategies Presented in Iraqi Sixth Primary’s English Student Textbook

       Ten short conversations were identified in the textbook. They were all subject to analysis as the corpus for this study. And they are as follows:

4. Results and Discussion

        It is obvious that the “Don’t do the FTAs” strategy was eliminated from the analysis as it would not be expected to be found within text analysis. One hundred ten (110) “Do the FTAs” cases were identified in the ten conversations analyzed tackling only the hearer’s face for analysis (excluding speaker’s FTAs). One hundred one (101) cases out of the 110 are “On record” cases which represent 92% of the total cases identified while only nine (9) cases are “off record” cases that represents only 8% of total cases.

Out of one hundred one (101) “on record” cases, forty-nine (49) cases are “Negative Politeness” strategies which represents 48.5%. On the other hand, forty-four (44) out of the 101 cases are “Positive Politeness” strategies, which constitutes 48.5% of the total “on record” cases. However, “Baldly on record” cases are the least cases found in the analysis with only eight (8) cases representing only around 8% of the total “On record” cases identified in the corpus.

The above figure shows the distribution of on record and off record cases found in the analysis. It further classifies the “on record” cases into those cases without redressive action “Baldly on record” and those cases with redressive action “Positive and Negative Politeness”.

The way the textbook presents the politeness strategies is variant and it provides a role model of different politeness scenarios. This is very crucial in language learning as students are expected to be exposed to all different politeness strategies. This fact was emphasized by other studies as Hussien (2025) (13) who, in her study, explores the impact of input frequency and language complexity on young children's language acquisition. Her study suggests that higher frequency leads to faster vocabulary growth and grammatical understanding. The study uses a mixed-method approach, combining quantitative and qualitative analysis. The study results show a strong positive correlation between a child's vocabulary size and conversation frequency. Children with richer vocabulary engage more in verbal interactions. The study concludes that both frequency and complexity are crucial for a child's linguistic development, solidifying foundational knowledge and driving cognitive growth. Another example is the study conducted by Ohmayed and Abdulfattah (2024) (14) that explores the relationship between social intelligence and speaking proficiency in Iraqi EFL students. The research, which involved 77 third-year unversity students, found a moderate positive correlation between social intelligence and speaking performance. The study suggests that as a student's social intelligence increases, their speaking ability also improves. However, gender and ethnicity did not significantly influence this correlation. The authors suggest that teaching methods should incorporate activities that enhance interpersonal awareness and social skills to improve communicative competence.

To sum up, the more a language learner is exposed to language in use and its different functions, the more they feel confident and fit in using the language. Politeness strategies are no exception as they represent a significant topic in language and communication. 

 5.Conclusion

    It is a fact that the “off record” strategy is not expected to be a very frequent strategy because the speaker is not expected to use indirectness all the way through a conversation when an interaction is taking a place. Yet, it is considered to be the most “Do FTA” polite strategy when compared to “on record” strategies. However, it was found only with 8% frequency in the analysis and it is essential for pupils to be introduced to this strategy as it teaches pupils how to be indirect/ more polite in some situations.

Negative and positive politeness strategies are found extensively in the corpus, which is again a good technique used in the textbook to teach pupils on using these both politeness strategies. Negative politeness is the most frequent strategy of all strategies found in the analysis and it is a good sign that the conversations in the textbook have been presented with taking into account one of the most important politeness strategies. Borrowing Brown and Levinson’s terms, Negative politeness is more polite on the scale than Positive and Bald strategies and the textbook was successful in presenting this strategy through the conversations of the textbook.

Finally, it is worth mentioning that “baldly on record”, being the least occurring strategy among the on record strategies with 8% only, is taken as a bonus point for the textbook. The pupils need to be introduced to this strategy but not to use it too often that it affects the overall politeness strategies being taught indirectly to them. In daily interactions, there are some situations where someone finds himself in a need to go “Baldly on record” and this could be the reason for including this strategy with the content presented in this textbook.

References

1.Bicchieri C., Muldoon R. Social norms”. In: Zalta EN (ed) The Stanford encyclopedia of philosophy, Spring, 2014th edn. Metaphysics Research Lab, Stanford University, Stanford.2014.

 2.Hobjilă  A.  Positive politeness and negative politeness in didactic communication–landmarks in teaching methodology. Procedia-Soc Behav Sci. 2012;63, 213-222.

3.Lakoff  R.  Stylistic Strategies within a Grammar of Style” in Orasanu, J. et al. (eds.) Language, Sex and Gender. The Annals of the New York Academy of Science, 1979;pp:53-80.

4.Leech  G.  Explorations in Semantics and Pragmatics. Amsterdam: John Benjamins Publishing Company.1980.

5.Brown P. and Levinson S. Politeness: Some Universals in Language Usage” in Jaworski, A. and Coupland, N. (eds.) The Discourse Reader. London: Routledge. 1987;pp:312-323.

6.Fraser B. Prespec polit J Pragmat.990;14;(2):219-236.

7.Thomas  J.  Meaning in Interaction: an Introduction to Pragmatics. London: Longman. 1995.

8.Yule  J.   Pragmatics. London: Oxford University Press. 1996.

9.Richards  J C  & Richard S.  Longman: Dictionary of Language teaching and applied linguistics. England: Pearson Education Limited. 2002.

10.Chapman  S.  Pragmatics. New York: Palgrave Macmillan 2011.

11.Goffman  E. Essays on Face-to-Face Behavior. New York: Pantheon Books. 1967.

12.Birner  B.   Introduction to Pragmatics. UK: Wiley-Blackwell.2013.

13.Hussein R. Investigating language acquisition in children: The role of input frequency and language complexity”. Al-Noor Journal for Humanities. 2015; 3(1):177–197.

14.Ohmayed  M & Abdulfattah S. Investigating Iraqi EFL learners’ social intelligence and their performance in speaking: A correlational study”. Al-Noor Journal for Humanities.  2024;1(3):151–185.