Politeness Strategies： A Comparison of Two Series of English Textbooks for Chinese Junior High School Students

1. Introduction

Nowadays， with the influence of globalization， cross-cultural communication plays an important role in everyday communication. However， it is far more essential to know how to politely and properly communicate with others in different contexts. Rose and Kasper （2001） add that pragmatic approach and components are included in many second language teaching curricula and materials in recent years， which inspires this assignment chooses to focus on analyzing politeness strategies used in textbooks.

2. Literature Review

2.1 Politeness and Politeness Strategies

Politeness， consists of two aspects， one is social-norm or non-linguistic view and the other is pragmatic view. Starting from the first category， Fraser （1990， p.220） defines it as “a particular set of social norms consisting of more or less explicit rules that prescribe a certain behavior， a state of affairs， or a way of thinking in context”. Generally speaking， politeness is a standard of behavior that everyone should follow whatever his culture is. However， under such real-world perspective， it is hard to access to communicators real feelings and their motivation of what they say （Thomas， 1995）. Nevertheless， repetitive experience of specific social situations could lead people to expect or predict certain kinds of expression and interaction， which become politeness routines and markers employed in polite expression， in other words， linguistic politeness. While， when talking about politeness as a pragmatic phenomenon， it is inevitable to mention Lakoffs （1973） pragmatic competence rules， Leechs （1983） conversational-maxim principles and Brown and Levinsons （1987） face threating acts and face-management strategies. Lakoff （1973） is one of the forerunners of politeness theory， who proposes a set of pragmatic rules and a model of politeness theory.

2.2 Previous Research

Throwing light on previous studies of politeness strategies， most of researches focus on comparing the practicability of Leechs “6 maxims” and Brown and Levinsons “5 face management strategies”. There are also some other researches about comparing politeness strategies in different cultures， such as， Zhu and Bao （2010） study on Chinese and Western politeness in daily communication. Zhou （2011） focuses on politeness principles in Chinese and English cultures. However， not many researches stress on comparing politeness strategies in different textbooks， which is a potential value and meaningfulness of this paper.endprint

3. Research Questions and Methodology

3.1 Research Questions

Referring to Chinese context， the junior high school curriculum was reformed in 2011， one of the new requirements was to develop students competence of employing proper communicative strategies to achieve successful communication （Chinese Ministry of Education， 2011）. Notably， it was also in 2011， a new edition of New Standard English was also published by Foreign Language Teaching and Research Press in order to follow the new curriculum requirements. This New Standard English is a series of English textbooks designed for junior high school students in China and in the new edition， more emphasis laid on leading students to pragmatically apply learnt knowledge in real life （Gu， 2012）. Therefore， the new edition is likely to contain more politeness strategies. This assumption directly leads to the following two research questions， which are also the main purposes of this assignment：

1. What are frequency and different types of politeness strategies in two editions？

2. To what extent the new edition is better than the old one， especially in politeness strategies use？

3.2 Research Objects

This paper aims to analyze and evaluate two editions of a set of coursebooks， named New Standard English. The first edition was published in 2005， while the second edition was published in 2011. There are 6 books in each edition， but in consideration of time limitation， I would like to choose Book1， 3， 5 in each of them which are used by students at Grade 7， Grade 8 and Grade 9 separately and mainly focus on dialogues contained in them.

3.3 Methods

In textbooks， all the interpersonal conversation are presented in text form， therefore， it would be better to employ content analysis method （Robson， 2011）.

4. Results and Analysis

4.1 What are frequency and different types of politeness strategies in two editions？

After analyzing the books， it is easy to find that positive politeness strategy is the most frequently used strategy. Meanwhile， negative politeness strategy becomes the second popular. On the contrary， it is hard to find the strategy of Dont Do The FTA and off-record strategy is not commonly used. In addition， both editions cover the similar types of strategies.

4.2 To what extent the new edition is better than the old one？

4.2.1 The Suitable Increase of Difficulty

In the old edition， there is a large gap between Grade 7 and Grade 8 as well as Grade 9 in the number of strategy types and total times of occurrence. Turning to the new edition， the number of strategies is gradually increasing included in textbooks， which may make it easier for students to adapt to.endprint

4.2.2 More Informative Content of Same Topic

In those two editions， there are some dialogues conducted under the same topics， but the structure and content are dramatically different.Take the dialogue about family introduction as an example. In the old one， only 4 sentences contained， which seems to imply the low communicative motivation. However， the new edition shows higher intractability and motivation between two communicators. Charactors communicate alternatively and logically.

4.2.3 Various Context

In the old edition， nearly all of the dialogues are implemented in classroom or friends home， but it is surprising to find various speaking contexts （museum， hotel， airport etc.） in the new edition.

5. Discussion

Generally speaking， based on former results and analysis， the new edition provides more benefits for students， which are reflected in following reasons. Firstly， an increasing number of politeness strategies are contained in textbooks from Grade 7 to Grade 9， consistently parallels with students developing learning competence and cognitive development. Secondly， compared with the old edition， politeness strategies more frequently appear. Therefore， employing the new edition in class teaching and learning， students could have more times to be exposed to strategies， thus， it potentially enables students to master more politeness strategies. Meanwhile， those strategies included in book of Grade 7 also involved in Grade 8 and Grade 9. When students repetitively and cyclically learn those strategies， solid knowledge and long term memory could be achieved. Another advantage is that various contexts are provided in the new edition. Learners can learn how to behave and express properly under different situations. Once learners have received comprehensible input， acquisition will take place Krashen （1985）. Thus， only if the input of a variety of strategies being achieved， could students apply them in real-world use and they may have more choices to cope with dynamic situations.

However， some common limitations still exist. The unequal distribution and insufficient types of strategies could be weaknesses of both editions.

6. Limitation

Concerning the time limitation， this paper only chooses 3 books of each edition and mainly analyzes the dialogues rather than all the content in each textbook， which may fail to provide a whole picture of how politeness strategies presented in coursebooks.endprint

7. Conclusion

To sum up， this paper compares two editions of New Standard English textbooks. After analyzing and comparing， it shows that the new edition exactly contains some advantages over the old one， including suitable difficulty， the higher frequency of using strategies and various communicative contexts. Whereas， there are still some limitations need to be improved.

References：

[1]Brown，P.&Levinson，S.（1987）.Politeness：some universals in language use.Cambridge：Cambridge University Press.

[2]Chinese Ministry of Education.（2011）.義務(wù)教育英語(yǔ)課程標(biāo)準(zhǔn)（2011年版）[English curriculum standards for compulsory education（2011 version）].Beijing：Beijing Normal University Press.

[3]Gu，Y.（2012）.English curriculum and assessment for basic education in China.In J.Ruan & C.B.Leung（Eds.），Perspectives on teaching and learning English literacy in China（pp.35-50）.London： Springer.

[4]Krashen，S.（1985）.The input hypothesis：issues and implications.London：Longman.

[5]Lakoff，R.（1973）.The logic of politeness：Or，minding your ps and qs.In C.Corum，T.Cedric Smith-Stark & A.Weiser（Eds.）， Papers from the 9th regional meeting of the Chicago linguistic society（pp.292-305）.Chicago：Chicago Linguistic Society.

[6]Leech，G.（1983）.Principles of pragmatics.New York：Longman Inc.

[7]Rose，K.& Kasper，G.（2001）.Pragmatics in language teaching.In K.Rose & G.Kasper（Eds.），Pragmatics in language teaching（pp.1- 10）.Cambridge：Cambridge University Press.

[8]Thomas，J.（1995）.Meaning in interaction.London：Longman.

[9]Zhou，J.（2011）.Study of the politeness principle in Chinese and English cultures - study of the politeness principle in Chinese and English cultures.Education Teaching Forum，9，140-142.

[10]Zhu，J.&Bao，Y.（2010）.The pragmatic comparison of Chinese and western“politeness” in cross-cultural communication.Journal of Language Teaching and Research，1（6），848-851.

作者簡(jiǎn)介：李國(guó)馨（1992-），女，漢族，山西太原人，研究生，畢業(yè)于愛(ài)丁堡大學(xué)，就職于山西工商學(xué)院，研究方向?yàn)門(mén)ESOL（對(duì)外英語(yǔ)教學(xué)）。endprint