An Investigation and Analysis of Politeness Strategies Employed in

College English Teachers’ Classroom Feedback

ZHAO Wanli, DU Aihong

School of Foreign Languages, Xianyang Normal University, P.R.China, 712000
[email protected]

Abstract: Based on teachers’ feedback in college English classroom teaching, the paper aims at finding
（ ）
out teachers’ politeness strategies PS in their feedback as well as students’ affection towards teachers’
feedback through classroom observation, closed-questionnaires and structured-interviews. The findings
are as follows: three categories of PS are employed in teachers’ feedback which are positive PS,
negative PS and off-record PS; students, whatever the top ones or the underachieving ones, all prefer to
the supportive verbal feedback, who expect the relaxed, happy and active learning environment.
Keywords: politeness strategies, teachers’ feedback, English classroom

1. Introduction

Since the nineties of last century, more and more scholars have begun to concern Politeness Principle
(PP) of Pragmatics (Xu, 1992; Gu, 1990, 1992; Gao, 1996; etc.). In the field of applied linguistics,
teacher talk (TT) has drawn increasing attention. The paper is to study PS employed in College English
Teachers’ Classroom Feedback, the use of which is helpful to create harmonious relationship between
teachers and students and improve students’ interest in learning English and consciousness of politeness.
College English Teaching Syllabus calls for overall development of students’ English comprehensive
ability and improvement of culture quality so as to adapt to the development of society and the demand
of international exchanges. For this reason, this paper is in an attempt to conduct an investigation about
teachers’ feedback from a pragmatic perspective. Given this intention, the study addresses PS employed
in teachers’ feedback, and Chinese EFL students’ preferences towards teachers’ feedback.

2. Literature Review

2.1 Foundation of Theory

The core of pragmatics is pragmatic principles, in which there are two major theories: the Face Theory
and the Politeness Principle (PP). They are the theoretical foundation of the present study.
2.1.1 The Face Theory
The Face Theory was put forward by Brown & Levinson in 1978 which includes three basic notions:
face, face-threatening acts (FTA) and politeness strategies (PS). They define ‘face’ as the public
self--image that every member wants to claim for himself, and further distinguish two kinds of face:
positive face and negative face. Brown & Levinson hold the view that nearly all speech acts are
face-threatening acts (FTAs). Some threaten the hearer’s negative face by imposing on the hearer. Other
FTAs threaten the hearer’s positive face by indicating the speaker’s lack of concern for the hearer’s
self-image. They suggest politeness is the attempt for the face wants of the speaker and the hearer, so
they call politeness “strategies” (1978). According to the face-threatening degree of speech acts, polite
linguistic devices are divided into: 1) bald on record without redressive actions; 2) positive politeness; 3)
negative politeness; 4) off record; 5) Don’t do the FTA, among which positive politeness; negative
politeness; off record are widely applied in speech acts.
2.1.2 Politeness Principle (PP)
The background of PP proposed is the theory of conversational implicature put forward by an Oxford
philosopher Herbert Paul Grice in1967. Grice proposed that all speakers, regardless of their cultural
background, adhere to a basic principle governing conversation which he termed the cooperative
principle (CP). In Leech’s view, the CP in itself can not explain why people are often so indirect in

595
conveying what they mean. PP can be seen not just as another principle to be added to CP, but as a
necessary complement, which rescues CP from serious trouble (ibid). Leech patterns on Grice’s CP and
divides the PP into six maxims, which are Tact Maxim, Generosity Maxim, Approbation Maxim,
Modesty Maxim, Agreement Maxim and Sympathy Maxim (Leech, 1983).
This thesis attempts to apply theories above to teachers’ feedback’ in order to find out the effective use
of teachers’ feedback and provide a theoretical platform for an integrated approach to teacher talk.

2.2 Previous study of politeness at home and abroad

With the development of pragmatics in the past thirty years or so, more and more attention has been
paid to the ways in which language is used to show politeness. Grice (1975) puts forward the
cooperative principle (CP), on which many scholars who follow base their own writings, and thereupon
the politeness study is inspired to spring up. Lakeoff (1973) was the first to deal with “politeness” as a
complementary element to Gricean Maxims of Cooperation (Grice, 1975). Leech (1983) sets up PP with
the purpose of rescuing Grice’s CP. Brown & Levinson (1978, 1987) put forward another influential
theory concerning politeness: the Face Theory.
In China serious study of politeness within the linguistic circles did not begin until the early 1980s.
Chen (1986) becomes the first person to introduce Brown and Levinson’s PP to China. Liu (1987)
discusses PP and proposes that PP is more restrictive in pragmatics than CP. Xu (1992) puts forward his
theory infrastructure “Attention to the articulators, respect for the interlocutors and concern with the
others”. Chen (1993) investigated the differences between Chinese and English politeness in
complementary languages. The theories of politeness from overseas were not a hundred percent
applicable to the Chinese culture. Gu is the first to propose the Politeness Maxims with Chinese
characteristics (He, 1995). Certainly, they are more suitable to the Chinese environment.
In conclusion, there have been numerous researches into PP and the Face Theory at home and abroad.
However, few scholars have ever stepped into the application of politeness theory to feedback of
teachers’ classroom speech acts. So the present study is designed to answer the following question:
What politeness strategies do English teachers employ in their classroom feedback? What are Chinese
EFL students’ preferences towards teachers’ feedback?

3 Research Methodology

3.1 Subjects
Participants of this study are thirty-one English teachers from Xianyang Normal College and the other
two English teachers from Shaanxi Normal University as well as their seventy-five students.

3.2 Instruments
The instruments are non-participant observation, follow-up structured-interviews and closed-
questionnaires. Two questionnaires for teachers and students were designed respectively to collect the
facts and perceptions about the politeness strategies to teachers’ feedback in English classroom teaching.

3.3 Procedures
The first step was designing the questions of questionnaires and structured-interviews.
The second step was observing the classrooms after the subjects permitting, and making a note.
The third step was that students were asked to complete questionnaires after the first English class of
each teacher and handed them in on the spot, so the response rate was 100%.
The fourth step was the interviews of teachers and the students. After the second class, the teachers were
interviewed and there was a private talk with twelve students about their preferable teachers’ feedback.
The fifth step was that questionnaires were handed out to thirty-one teachers in an activity of teaching
and research, and then were handed in on the spot after they finished it.

3.4 Data classification

The analysis of data was divided into two big steps. The first step was that 75 copies of questionnaires

596
were received, then items chosen, converted into digits, were put into SPSS 13.0 version for statistical
data calculation. What politeness strategies they employed could be concluded from questionnaires. The
second step deals with the results of the interviews, which concludes the general attitude of teachers and
students towards teachers’ feedback.

4. Results and Discussion

4.1 Data Analysis and Discussion

4.1.1 Analysis and Discussion of Teachers’ Questionnaires
The data was collected through a 14-item questionnaire, categorized into two classes: teachers’ practice
of PS and the effects of PS application. Here are the results for some items beginning with Item 1.

Table 4-1: Reason for Students’ Lack of Motivation

Options
Item 1
A B C D
What’s the main reason for students’ lack of
motivation in English class? 8.5% 60.5% 26.5% 4.5%

A. Having no interest
B. Poor foundation
C. Being afraid of making mistakes and losing face
D. Have no assurance

Figure 4-1

As is shown in Table 4-1, 26.5% of the participants think they are afraid of making mistakes and losing
face; 60.5% of them point out that it is because of their poor foundation in English; 8.5% believe they
are not interested in English. Teachers can seek agreement, share interests and treat them as friends
between teachers and students. Only in this way is the students’ positive face satisfied.

Table 4-2. Strategies Employed in Teachers’ Classroom Feedback

Options
Item 2 and 5
A B C D
Item 2: What feedback would you do with students’ mistakes 21% 18% 61%
in class?
Item 5: What strategy do you often employ when you have to 51.5% 36.3% 12.1%
threaten students’ face?

70
60 Item 2
50 A. To pay no attention.
Percentage

40 B. To point them out individually

30 after class.
20 C. To point them out immediately
10 D. To guide them to solve the
0 Problem patiently
A B C D
Options

Figure 4-2 (a)

597
 60
50 Item 5
A. Explaining.
40
Percentage

B. Trying to minimize
30 the threatening.
20 C. Taking no action.
10 D. Being indefinite.
0
A B C D
Options

Figure 4-2 (b)

Item 2 investigates teachers’ attitudes toward students’ mistakes in class. 61% of the teacher participants
indicate they will guide them to solve the problems patiently, 21% will point out the mistakes after class,
while 18% will point them out immediately. In item 5, participants are asked what the strategy they
often employ is when they have to threaten their students’ face. 36.3% of them try to minimize the
face-threaten, 51.5% explain to them, and only 12.1% are indefinite.

Table 4-3. Effects of PS Application on Teaching and Learning in Teachers’ Feedback

Strongly Strongly
Item Agree (%) No View (%) Disagree (%)
Agree (%) Disagree (%)
8 60.6 36.4 0.0 3.0 0.0
10 42.4 45.5 3.0 6.1 3.0
11 3.0 6.1 3.0 21.2 66.7
13 54.5 39.4 6.1 0.0 0.0
14 69.7 24.2 6.1 0.0 0.0
Note. Item 8: Effective teachers’ feedback should satisfy students’ face-wants as much as possible.
Item10: Once the students’ face wants are recognized, their interests in learning will be motivated.
Item11: The maintenance of harmonious classroom atmosphere will not be affected by the teachers’
use of politeness feedback.
Item13: The teaching which uses politeness strategies is far superior to that which does not.
Item14: Polite and appropriate teachers’ feedback has a positive influence upon the improvement of
students’ pragmatic competence.

Figure 4-3

In Table 4-3 and Figure 4-3 above, for Item 8, an overwhelming majority (97%) agree that teachers’
encouragement and praise have a positive effect on stimulating students’ motivation. In Item 10, the
percentage (87.9%) is also high in terms of agreement on students’ interest in learning, and the students
can be motivated by meeting their face-wants. Item 11 is the statement that the maintenance of
harmonious classroom atmosphere will not be affected by the teachers’ use of politeness principle, the

598
percentage (87.9%) is high in terms of disagreement. Results of Item 13 reveal that (93.9%) of the
teacher participants hold the belief that the teachers’ feedback which uses PS is far superior to that
which does not. The statement of Item 14 is that polite and appropriate teachers’ feedback has a positive
influence on the improvement of students’ pragmatic competence.
4.1.2 Analysis and Discussion of Students’ questionnaire
Presented here are the data results for some items starting with Item 3.

Table 4-4. Teachers’ Politeness Strategies

Options
Item3 and 4
A B C D
Item 3: What does your teacher usually do when his or her
opinion is in conflict with students? 25.3% 6.7% 57.3% 10.7%

Item 4: In your former English study, how many English teachers

26.7% 46.7% 22.7% 4%
can keep using politeness strategies?

Item 3:
A. To persuade students to accept his/her own opinion.
B. To avoid the topic in discussion.
C.To solve the problem together with students.
D. To accept students’ opinion.

Figure 4-4(a)

Item 4:
A. Most of them.
B. Some of them.
C. A few of them.
D. Few of them.

Figure 4-4(b)

Table 4-4, Figure 4-4(a) and Figure 4-4(b) present the following analyses. In Item 3, students are asked
to express what strategies their teacher will employ when his/her opinion is in conflict with students,
57.3% of the participants indicate that their teacher will solve the problem together with them, 25.3% of
the teachers will persuade them to accept his or her opinion, 6.7% of the students point out their teacher
will avoid the topic in discussion. As to the statement in Item 4, 26.7% of the participants indicate most
of their teachers in their former English study kept using PS, and only 4% complain that few of their
teachers employed the strategies in their classroom feedback.
4.1.3 Analysis and Discussion of Interviews
Interviews are composed of two parts: one is six non-major students in Class 1 and six major students in
Class 2, the other are their English teachers. The first interview is only a private talk with the teacher,
who said that she recognized the importance of teacher’s feedback and thought that it can influence
classroom interaction. But she had little knowledge of theories about it, and just made a feedback
towards students’ response. In the opinion of the second teacher, the reason why her students were brave
enough to say out the answer in front of the whole class was her friendly attitude towards their response,
which is from the form or technique of teachers’ feedback. However, she lacked systematical theories
on teachers’ feedback and politeness theories although she did well in practice.
The students interviewed had almost the same opinion. They said they preferred to the positive teacher

599
s’ feedback rather than the negative one. If the teacher criticized them when they made mistakes, they
would never brave enough to answer any question again. It is found that they all look forward to
teacher’s notice and encouragement, whether they are the top students or the underachieving ones.

4.2 Results
Teachers use different types of feedback to show different verbal politeness strategies running as
follows: positive PS, negative PS, and off-record PS. However, explicit correction and criticism of
teachers’ feedback are bald on record without redressive actions.
It is concluded that criticism and explicit correction of the non-supportive verbal feedback are bald on
record without redressive actions. It is likely that teaching concepts of teachers are deeply affected by
Chinese traditional education notions that teachers’ position is higher than students and also in students’
eyes, teachers are authorities and saints. Positive politeness is oriented toward the positive self-image
and emphasizes the need for association. Teachers employ positive PS to show their positive feedback.
Negative politeness is oriented mainly toward partially satisfying students’ negative face. The most
frequent negative PS is to be conventionally indirect, which forms can be performed by questioning or
asserting the felicity conditions underlying the act. Through observation, teachers often employed
off-record PS to save students’ face in EFL classroom. It is known that implicit correction feedback is
one of the teachers’ feedbacks that students like best. That is because implicit correction feedback hints
that the student’ answer differs from what the teacher wants, saves the student’ positive face and
meanwhile encourages the student to state freely his idea.
Whatever the top students or the underachieving students, all prefer to the supportive verbal feedback,
and expect the relaxed, happy and active learning environment.

5. Conclusion

It is found that there is a gap more or less between the teachers’ feedback in practice and the expectation
of the students towards teachers’ feedback. Therefore, for teachers, rich linguistic knowledge is not
enough. Only having obtained enough knowledge of psychology and politeness theory, does the teacher
can really understand students, satisfy their face wants and make them become interested in English. So
the following suggestions are put forward: developing teachers’ theory knowledge on pragmatics,
strengthing the effectiveness of teachers’ feedback, focusing on the use of appropriate politeness
strategies, and paying attention to the social values of English. In teachers’ classroom feedback, they
should use intensified supportive verbal feedback, which is more suitable for the westerns’ concept of
face, so as to raise students’ pragmatic competence in communication.

This paper is one of research results of Xianyang Normal University’s teaching reform project
(200802015) and the project of Shaanxi Province’s Department of Education (09JK280).

References

[1]. Brown, P. & S. Levinson. Politeness: Some Universals in Language Usage[M]. Cambridge:
Cambridge University Press, 1987.
[2]. Grice, H.P. “Logic and Conversation” [M]. in P.Cole and J.Morgan (eds.) 1967.
[3]. Gu, Yueguo. Politeness Phenomenon in Modern Chinese[J]. Journal of Pragmatics. 1990 (14):
237-257. (in Chinese)
[4]. He, Zhaoxiong. Study of Politeness in Chinese and English Culture[J]. Journal of Foreign
Languages, 1995 (5): 2-8.
[5]. Lakoff, R. Stylistic Strategies within a Grammar of Style[A]. In the Annals of the New York
Academy of Science. 1979: 53-78.
[6]. Leech, G. Principles of Pragmatics [M]. New York: Longman Group Limited. 1983: 132, 171.

600