英汉商务信函中礼貌策略的对比分析

ContentsTOC\o"1-3"\h\uChineseAbstract 2EnglishAbstract 31.Introduction 41.1AGeneralDescriptionoftheStudy 41.2AimoftheStudy 41.3SignificanceoftheStudy 41.4OutlineoftheStudy 52.ASurveyofRelevantLiterature 52.1PreviousStudies 52.2TheoreticalFoundation 73.AComparativeStudyofPolitenessStrategiesinEBCandCBC 103.1TheApplicationofPolitenessStrategiesinEBC 103.2TheApplicationofPolitenessStrategiesinCBC 133.3SimilaritiesofPolitenessStrategiesBetweenEBCandCBC 153.4DifferencesofPolitenessStrategiesBetweenEBCandCBC 164.Conclusion 18References 19英汉商务信函中礼貌策略的对比分析摘要在国际商务沟通中，信函是使用最频繁的主要工具之一。国内外对商务信函的研究大部分是从文体学角度或者从单一信函类别角度，对英汉商务信函中的礼貌策略对比分析还比较少。Brown和Levinson的面子威胁理论提出了四类礼貌策略：积极礼貌策略、消极礼貌策略、直接性礼貌策略及间接性礼貌策略。本文将重点利用Brown和Leech的积极策略和消极策略模型来对英汉商务信函应用情况进行分析并探究中国与西方英语国家在礼貌策略运用是否存在差异，以及产生异同的原因。从对比分析中发现，差异的原因来源于中西方对人际关系的理解不同和中西方价值观各有特点。中国崇尚长幼尊卑，西方则倡导人人平等。中国以和谐为主流文化价值观而西方则追求自我满足的精神。中西方文化的巨大差异导致了其礼貌策略使用的差异,并且只有充分了解这些差异,人们才能有效地进行国际商务沟通,达到预期的目的。关键词：礼貌策略；英汉商务信函；对比分析A

Contrastive

Analysis

of

PolitenessStrategies

in

English

and

ChineseBusiness

Correspondence

AbstractCorrespondenceisoneofthemostfrequentlyusedmajortoolsininternationalbusinesscommunication.Themajorityofthedomesticandforeignresearchonbusinesscorrespondencearemainlyfromtheperspectiveofstylisticsorfromtheperspectiveofasinglecorrespondencecategory.ComparativeanalysisofpolitenessstrategiesinEnglishandChinesebusinesscorrespondenceisrelativelyfewer.AccordingtoBrownandLeech’sfacethreattheory,fourtypesofpolitenessstrategiesareproposed:positivepolitenessstrategy,negativepolitenessstrategy,directpolitenessstrategy,andindirectpolitenessstrategy.ThispaperwillfocusontheanalysisofthepolitenessstrategiesusedinEnglishandChinesebusinesscorrespondencebasedonBrownandLevinson’spositiveandnegativestrategymodels.ItwillalsoexplorewhethertherearedifferencesintheuseofpolitenessstrategiesbetweenChinaandWesternEnglish-speakingcountriesandthereasonsforthedifferences.Bycomparisonandcontrast,itisfoundthatthereasonsofthedifferenceslieinthedifferentunderstandingofinterpersonalrelationshipbetweenChinaandtheWestandthedifferentcharacteristicsofChineseandWesternvalues.ChinaupholdsseniorityruleswhiletheWestadvocatesequalityforall.ChinatakesharmonyasthemainstreamculturalvalueswhiletheWestpursuesthespiritofself-satisfaction.ThetremendousdifferencesbetweenChineseandWesterncultureshaveledtodifferencesintheuseofpolitestrategiesandonlybyfullyunderstandingthesedifferencescanpeopleeffectivelyconductinternationalbusinesscommunicationandachievetheintendedpurpose.Keywords:politenessstrategies;English

and

Chinesebusinesscorrespondence;contrastiveanalysisIntroduction1.1AGeneralDescriptionoftheStudyPolitenessisanessentialpartofpeople’sdailylifeandisavitalfactorinhumancommunication.Manyexpertsareinterestedinit.Theyhaveexaminedpolitenessstrategiesindifferentperspectives.Appropriatepolitenessstrategiescanbehelpfulfortheeffectiveexchangeofinformationandthetriumphantestablishmentormaintenanceofsocialrelations.Politenessresearchisoneofthemostimportantresearchfieldsinrecentdecades,whichhascapturedpeople’sattention.Politenesstheoryisnotonlywidelyusedinpeople’sdailyconversationandcommunication,butalsocanprovidegreathelpinawiderangeofbusinesswrittendiscoursefields.Theproblemofhowtousedifferentpolitenessstrategiesintarget-orientedbusinesscorrespondencehasarisen.BasedonLeech’spolitenessprinciple,Brown’sfaceviewandLakoff’spolitenessview,thispaperanalyzesthecharacteristicsofpolitenessstrategiesinEnglishbusinesscorrespondenceandChinesebusinesscorrespondence.ThepresuppositionresearchcanprovidesomeguidingprinciplesfortheEBCandCBCwritersfromtheculturalperspectivesoastohelpthemmakepoliteapplicationandimprovetheirlanguageandcommunicationability.1.2AimoftheStudyThepurposeofthestudyistocomparetheuseofpolitenessstrategiesinEBCandCBC.ItexploresthedifferencesbetweentheapplicationofpolitenessstrategiesinEBCandCBC.TheexpectedresultistohelpChineseEnglishbusinessmentoimprovetheirpolitenessstrategiccompetenceinordertoovercometheobstaclesinbusinesscommunication,whichcouldfacilitateeffectivecross-culturalcommunication.Thestudywillanswerthefollowingquestions:Whatarethepolitenessstrategiesinbusinesscorrespondence?WhatarethepolitenessstrategiesgenerallyusedbyCBCandEBCinbusinesscommunication?WhatarethedifferencesintheuseofpolitenessstrategiesinEBCandCBC?ArethereanydifferencesintheuseofpositiveandnegativestrategiesinEBCandCBC?Ifso,whatisit?WhatreasonscanbeputforwardaccordingtotheuseofpolitenessstrategiesinEBCandCBCfromtheperspectiveofcross-culturalcommunication？1.3SignificanceoftheStudyInthewakeofvigorousdevelopmentofeconomyinthe21stcentury,theinternationalanddomestictradeexchangesareincreasinglyfrequent.TheeconomicexchangesbetweenChinaandtheWestarebecomingmoreintense.Businesscorrespondenceisanessentiallinkintradeactivitiesinbusinesscommunication.Businesscorrespondenceismainlyusedforexternalcontactbetweenorganizationsengagedinbusinessorbetweenbusinessorganizationsandcustomerstheyserve.Itisamoreformalwrittenstylewhichismostlyusedtocontactthebusiness,conductbusinessnegotiations,communicatebusinessmatters,etc.Businesscorrespondenceiswidelyusedasacommunicationbridgebetweenbuyersandsellersinsocialbusinessactivities.Communicationstartsfromcorrespondenceandendsatcorrespondence.Therefore,thebusinesscorrespondencewithaccuratelanguageexpression,standardformatandreasonablelayoutoftenplaysadecisiveroleintradepracticeespeciallyinthefinaldecisionofthetransaction.Apolitebusinesscorrespondencecanestablishanexcellentcorporateimageandcreateaharmoniousbusinessinterpersonalrelationship,inwhichthepolitenessstrategyplaysanimportantrole.Astheinternationallanguageintheworld,EnglishisoftenusedininternationaltradeactivitiesthroughEBC.ThroughthecomparativeanalysisofpolitenessstrategiesinEBCandCBC,peoplecanbetterunderstandtheculturalconnotationdifferencesbetweenEnglishandChinese,thesimilaritiesanddifferencesintheuseofpolitenessstrategiesandpourattentionintothedifferencesofpolitenessstrategiesinbusinesscorrespondencesothatpeoplecan“knowyourselfandyourpartner,andneveroffend”incross-culturalbusinesscommunication.Cross-culturalbusinesscommunicationcanachievesubstantivesuccessbyavoidingculturalconflictsintoday’sglobaltradedevelopment.1.4OutlineoftheStudyThisthesisiscomposedoffourparts.Chapterone,Introduction,introducesageneraldescriptionofthestudy,aimofthestudy,needforthestudyandoutlineofthestudy.Chaptertwo,ASurveyofRelevantLiterature,reviewsthestudiesonpolitenessandprovidesdifferentdefinitionsofpolitenessinChineseandEnglishandbusinesscommunication,thenprovidesthetheoriesofpolitenessbetweenChinaandtheWest．Chapterthree,AComparativeStudyofPolitenessStrategiesinEBCandCBC,attemptstoexaminetheuseofpolitenessstrategiesinbothEBCandCBCespeciallypositivestrategyandnegativestrategyandanalyzesthedifferencebetweenEnglishandChinesebusinesscorrespondencefromtheacross-culturalperspective.Chapterfour,Conclusion,presentsthefindingsanddiscussestheimplications．ASurveyofRelevantLiteraturePreviousStudiesPolitenessisacommonphenomenonandithasinfluenceonpeople’sdailylife.Astheworldenteredanewera,thedemandforinternationalcommunicationandcooperationsharplyincreased.Howtobepoliteincommunicationsespeciallyinbusinesscommunicationhasarousedwidespreadattentionandinterestofquiteafewresearchers.HeZhaoxiong(1999)pointsoutthatpolitenesscanbetakenasasocialphenomenon,ameanstoachievegoodinterpersonalrelationship.ChenLintang(1992)saidpolitenessisoneoftheweaponsinthemall.Writingacorrespondencewithoutpayingattentiontopolitenessislikenobulletwhenfighting.Politenessisoneofthemainsocialconstraintsininterpersonalcommunicationanditregulatestheircommunicativebehaviorbyceaselesslyremindingparticipantstoconsiderbothparties’feelingsinthatitisnecessarytoconsiderthefeelingsofeachotherinordertoestablishmutualcomfortandpublicrelations,whichinturnacceleratesandpromoteshumanexchange.Politenessisauniversalactinlanguage.AccordingtotheoriginandflowofpolitenessrelatedtoChineselanguageandculture,GuYueguo(1990),aChinesescholar,putforwardfourpolitenessfeatures:respect,modesty,attitudinalwarmthandrefinement.Therearesimilaritiesanddifferencesintheinterpretationofpolitenessstrategiesindifferentlanguageenvironmentsandculturalbackgrounds.Manydomesticscholarscontinuetostudydeeplyonthetheoreticalbasisofforeignscholars.DaiBinghui(2010)studiestheapplicationofcooperativeprincipleandpolitenessprincipleinEnglishcomplaintlettersundertheguidanceofcooperativeprincipleandpolitenessprincipletheory.XiaChunju(2009)analyzestheformationofrefusalstrategiesandtheinfluenceofcooperativeprincipleandpolitenesstheoryonfiverefusalstrategieswithalargenumberofselectedtexts.XuDongmei(2008)alsostudiestherejectionstrategiesinconflictletters.Yeung(1997)discussesthepolitenessrequirementsinCBCandEBCinHongKong.CaiXian’e’sPolitenessstrategiesinChineseandEnglishBusinessLetters(2003)studiestheapplicationofpolitenessstrategiesinbusinesslettersfromacross-culturalperspective.Westernresearchonpolitenessstrategyoriginatedinthe1960s.Moreandmorescholarshavestudiedfromtheperspectiveofpragmaticsandputforwardmany“politeness”theories,whichlaidthetheoreticalfoundationforpolitenessstrategies.ThefamousBritishscholarLeech(1983)firstproposedthe“PolitenessPrinciple”,whichexplainedtheimportantroleofpolitenessinlanguagecommunication.Theimplementationofthepolitenessprinciplemustfollowsixprinciples:(1)TactMaxim,(2)GenerosityMaxim,(3)ApprobationMaxim,(4)ModestyMaxim,(5)AgreementMaxim,(6)SympathyMaxim.Sincethen,AmericansociallinguistRobinLakoff(1989)hasalsoproposedthreeprinciplesofpoliteness:(1)Don’timpose,(2)providechoices,(3)friendlytreateachother.Accordingtothecorrespondinglanguageandculturalbackground,thetwoscholarsinterprettheprincipleof“politeness”differently,whichshowsthatpolitenessdependsonthedevelopmentoflanguageandculture.In1987,BrownandLevinsonproposedthe“Face-SavingTheory”basedontheconceptof“face”ofGoffman(1959).TheprincipleofpolitenessinLeechissupplementedandimproved.Theybelievedthattheconceptofpolitenessisstrategic.Emphasizingonpolitenessistotrytomaintainthefaceofbothpartiesincommunicationandminimizethethreattothefaceofbothpartiesfromcertaincommunicationbehavior.Yule(1996)used“borrowingpen”asanexampletoelaboratethesefivepolitestrategies.Thespeakeristhesenderandthereceiveristherecipientinbusinesscommunications.Politenessprinciplesandpolitenessstrategiesaretheprimaryconditionsforcommunication，whicharewidelyreflectedinbusinesscorrespondence.EBCandCBCusedifferentpolitenessstrategiesundertheinfluenceofdifferentlanguagesandculturalbackgrounds.SomescholarshavestudiedtheapplicationofpolitenessstrategiesinCBCandEBC.Otherscholars(Chiappini&Harris,1996)havetriedtostudythedifferencesinrequeststrategiesbetweennativespeakersandsecondlanguagelearners,andtoexplorethefactorsthatinfluencethechoiceofstrategies.Forexample,Maier(1992)exploresthepolitenessstrategiesofEnglish-speakingandnon-English-speakingpeopleinbusinesscorrespondence.Pilegaard(1997)explorespolitenessandpolitenessstrategiesinwrittenbusinessdiscoursefromtheperspectiveofwrittendiscourse.Tosumup,greatprogresshasbeenachievedinthecharacteristics,writingandtranslationofbusinesscorrespondencebymanyexpertsandscholarsathomeandabroadundertheguidanceofpolitenessprinciplesandstrategies.ThestudyofpolitenessstrategiesisanewtrendinthestudyofbusinesscorrespondenceinEnglishandChinese.2.2TheoreticalFoundation2.2.1Leech’sPolitenessPrinciple“Politenessisamatterofdegree.Differentkindsanddegreesofpolitenessarecalledforindifferentsituations”(Leech,1983:104).Mostofwhatwesayandanarmyofthecommunicationwehavedependonoursocialrelationships.Variousstrategiesareneededinordertoachieveproperpolitenessinagivensituation.Leech’spolitenessprincipleisanotherinfluentialpolitenesstheory.Leechestablishedhimselfasanotherimportantcontributorofpolitenessresearch.LeechagreedwithGrice’scooperationprincipleframeworkinprinciplebuthesuggestedthatitshouldbepromoted.Grice’s“cooperativeprinciple”and“conversationalimplicature”(Grice,1975:41-58)failstofullyexplainwhypeopledeliberatelyviolatetherulesofdialoguebecausetheyshouldobservethemandwhytheychoosetoexpressthemselvesinaroundaboutwayratherthandirectly.Leechbelievesthatthisisoutofconcernforpolitenessinmostcases.Inhisopinion,politenesshasnothingtodowith“pragmaticprogress”but“achievingsocialgoals”(Watts,1992:7).Forexample,itistheultimategoalofpolitenesstobringthegreatestbenefittothespeakerandthelisteneratthelowestcost.LeechformulatedhisownpolitenessprincipleandmaximsonthebasisofGrice’scooperativeprinciple.HeformedaninfluentialtheoryonpolitenessastheadaptationandexpansionofGrice’sCooperativePrinciplein1983.Leechbelievesthattheprincipleofcooperationisnottheonlyonethatguidesandconstrainshumaninteraction.Theprincipleofcooperationitselfcannotexplaintherelationshipbetweenreasonandpower.Theprincipleofcooperationregulateswhatwesay,whichhelpstoachievesomeassumedspeechgoals.Whiletheprincipleofpolitenesshelpstomaintainthefriendlyrelationshipbetweentheinterlocutors,whichenablesustoassumethattheinterlocutorsarethecooperatorsfirst.Thepolitenessprinciple“rescue”cooperationprinciplehelpstoexplainwhypeopledeliberatelyviolatedialoguemaximsandchoosetoexpresstheminaroundaboutway.ModelinghimselfaccordingtoGrice’scooperationprinciple,Leech(1983)alsoadoptedtheGrice’sframeworkandformulatedaseriesofmaximumandminorvalue.Leachsummarizedthesixprinciplesofpolitenessasfollows:(1)TactMaximMinimizebenefittoselfMaximizebenefittoother(2)GenerosityMaximMinimizecosttootherMaximizecosttoself(3)ApprobationMaximMinimizedispraiseofotherMaximizepraiseofother(4)ModestyMaximMinimizepraiseofselfMaximizedispraiseofself(5)AgreementMaximMinimizedisagreementbetweenselfandotherMaximizeagreementbetweenselfandother(6)SympathyMaximMinimizeantipathybetweenselfandotherMaximizesympathybetweenselfandother(Leech,1983:132)2.2.2BrownandLevinson’sFaceTheoryB&LfollowsGrice’stheoryofcooperationprinciplesandadvocatesthatverbalpolitenessisasupplementtotheprinciplesofcooperation.Theybelievethatverbalcommunicationisessentiallyrationalandclear.Inviewofthis,B&LtriestousetheirtheorytodeviatefromtheprincipleofcooperationSpeechactsprovideaprincipledexplanation(principledreasons).Theypointoutthatanidealmodelperson(ModelPerson)hastwocharacteristics—rationalityandface(BrownandLevinson,1987:58).Identifyandusethemeansthathelptoachievethegoal.Obviously,thetheoryofrationalityadherestothetheoreticalspiritofGrice’scooperativeprinciple.Facereferstothepersonalandsocialneedsofthespeaker.Bothneedsshouldbetakenintoaccountinthecommunicationprocess,whichisembodiedinnegativefaceandpositiveface.AccordingtothedefinitionofB&L,negativefacereferstothebasicrequirementsfortheterritory,thescopeofpersonalactivitiesandtherightnottobeintruded.Positivefacereferstotherequirementthatthecommunicatorwantsagoodandconsistentpersonalimageorpersonality,andisrecognizedandappreciated(BrownandLevinson,1987:61).Inshort,thenegativefaceexpressesthepersonalneedsofautonomyandthepositivefaceexpressesthesocialneedsofapproval.Asthefaceproblemisaprocessforyoutocomeandgo,anyrationaltalkerwilltrytoavoidthebehaviorthatdamagesface,oradoptsomestrategiestominimizethedamage.B&Lbelievesthat(BrownandLevinson,1987:68-70)thespeakerwillchoosethefollowingfivestrategiesaccordingtothedamagecausedbyFTAs(FaceThreateningActs)tothefaceoftheaddressee:BaldonrecordPositivepolitenessNegativepolitenessOff-recordNon-performanceB&Lassertsthatpolitenessinspeechisnotadichotomywithorwithoutdichotomybutacontinuum.Fromstrategy(1)tostrategy(5),theabilitytoregulatetheharmfulnessofspeechactsgraduallyincreasesandthedegreeofpolitenesscontinuestoincrease.Speakersaremoreinclinedtoadoptthelatterstrategieswhentheyareexpectedtobemoreharmful.2.2.3Lakoff’sViewofPolitenessLakoffisthefirstscholarwhousesGrice’sconversationalprincipletoexplainpolitenessandstudiespolitenessfromtheperspectiveofdialoguemaximization.Generallyspeaking,Lakoffregardspolitenessasavoidingoffence.Whenreferringtotheconflictbetweenclarityandpoliteness,shestated:Politenessisusuallyconsideredmoreimportantinaconversationtoavoidoffencethantoachieveclarity.Thismakessense,sinceactualcommunicationofimportantideasissecondarytomerelyreaffirmingandstrengtheningrelationsinmostinformalconversations.(Lakoff,1973:297-298)Lakoff(1973:101-129)suggeststworulesofPragmaticCompetence:a.Beclear.b.Bepolite.Lakoff(1973)arguesthatpolitenessdevelopsinsocietyinordertoreducefrictioninpersonalinteraction.Shebelievesthatifthemessageisobvious,thespeakerwillemphasizetheclarityoftheconversations;ifnot,thespeakerwillgivemoreconsiderationtothesocialstatusofthelistenerandsomeotherfactorsinvolvedintheconversation.Mostofthetime,theclarityoftheconversationissacrificedinordertoachievepoliteness.Basedonthisview,Lakoff(1973)proposedthreeprinciplesofpolitenessfromtheperspectiveofthespeaker:a.Don’timpose.Usedwhenformal/impersonalpolitenessisrequired.b.Giveoptions.Usedwheninformalpolitenessisrequired.c.Makehearerfeelgood.Usedwhenintimatepolitenessisrequired.Shelaterreformulatestherulesofpolitenessasfollows:a.Formality:Keepaloof.b.Deference:Giveoptions.c.Camaraderie:Showsympathy.(Lakoff,1973:101-129)Inshort,Lakoffbelievesthatpolitenesscanavoidoffenceandmaintainaharmoniousrelationshipbetweenthespeakerandthelistenerthroughthelubricantincommunication.Infact,Lakoff’smaximhassomethingtodowithBrown’sandLevinson’sviewoffacialprotection.“Don’timpose”and“giveoption”canberegardedasretainingthenegativeexpressionofthelistenerandthespeaker;ontheotherhand,“makethehearerfeelgood”isrelevanttopositivepoliteness.AComparativeStudyofPolitenessStrategiesinEBCandCBC3.1TheApplicationofPolitenessStrategiesinEBC3.1.1PositiveStrategiesinEBCAsthefirstmeansofapositivestrategy,“claimcommonground”attemptstominimizethedistancebetweenthewriterandtherecipientbyemphasizingastronginterestintheneedsoftheotherparty.Thespecificstrategiesof“commonground”areasfollows:Strategy1:Notice,attendtoH(her/hisinterests,wants,needs,goods)(1)Thanksforyourunderstanding.Pleasekindlyletmeknowwhatyouthink.(2)Weappreciateyourviewsonthepossibilityoflaunchingbusinessventure.(3)Oursavingsaccountspay5%interest.(4)Youwillearn4%interestfromyoursavingsaccount.Thisstrategymeansthatthewritershouldpayattentiontoorfullyconsidertherecipient’sinterests,needsandwishesinordertomaintainagoodfriendlyrelationship.Thiskindofconsiderationfortherecipientisparticularlynecessaryinbusinesscorrespondence.BrownandLevinsonalsocitedtheexampleof“God,youcutyourhair”toshowtherecipient’sattentiontotheaudience.Thewriterusuallyexpressesappreciationandpraiseandadoptsattitudelanguagetoachievethisstrategyinbusinesscorrespondence.Asshownintheaboveexample,complimentsinEBCusuallyproducepositiveeffects,whichhelpstogainagoodimpressionandtrustfromtherecipient,forexample,itcanmaketherecipientfeelsincerebypraisinginanaturalandrationalwaywithappropriatesentencepatternssuchas:thanksfor+doing/thankyouforyourdoingandsoon.Bycomparingtheexamplesof(3)and(4),wecanfindthatthesample(4)ismorepolitethansample(3)byusingyou-languetoshowthewriter’ssincereconcernabouttherecipient’sinterests.You-languemaintainsthepositivefaceoftheotherpartyandconstructsaharmoniousrelationship.Secondly,you-langueembodiesawritingstylewhichexpressesopinionsinapositivewayandshowsanoptimisticattitudewithahappytone.Strategy2:Exaggerate(interest,approval,sympathywithreceiver)Wewouldbeextremelygratefulforanearlyreplyandcanassureyouthatitwillbetreatedinthestrictestconfidence.Iamquitewillingtohavethesurfacereplaced,butIamafraidwewillhavetochargeyouforthematerialsandworkinvolved.Intheaboveexamples,thewritersatisfiestherecipient’sfavoriteneedsandexpressestheirconcernstotherecipientbyexaggeratingtheapprovalinexample(1)andthewillingnessinexample(2)Asaresult,therecipient’spositivefaceissatisfied.Thewritershowshisinterest,approvalandempathyproperly,whichgreatlyreducesthepsychologicaldistancebetweenthewriterandtherecipient.Usingappropriateexaggeratedwordsnotonlymaintainsthepositivefaceoftherecipient,butalsoachievesthegoalofthewriter.Strategy3:Beoptimistic(1)Iamconfidentthatthiswillbeofinteresttoyou.(ZhangLanzhi,2007:32)(2)Weareconfidentthatyouwillappreciatethisinitiativedelivery.(ZhangLanzhi,2007:32)Optimismherereferstothewriter’soptimisminhiscorrespondence.Whenthewriterisoptimisticabouttherecipient’sbehavior,hewillshowhisconfidenceintherecipientandtherelationshipbetweenthem.BrownandLevinsonprovideexamplessuchas“I’msureyouwon’tmindifIborrowyourtypewriter”,“You’lllendmeyourbike,right”andsoon.3.1.2NegativeStrategiesinEBCOnthebasisofBrownandLevinson,“givefreedomofaction”,“dissociatesender/receiverfromact”and“minimizeimposition”arethreelinguisticcategoriestoachievenegativepoliteness.Strategy1:Beconventionallyindirect(1)Couldyoupleasetakemorenoteofourinstructionsinthefuture?(2)Willyoupleasesendmesomeonetopickupthewronglydeliveredgoods?(3)Couldyouchangethepackingsizeaswenoteinthisletter?Theexemplaryverb“could”inthesesentencesindicatesthatthewriteronlyquestionedwhethertherecipientiswillingtosatisfyhimselfratherthanforcingtherecipienttosatisfyhimself.Therefore,therecipientstillhasthefreedomtochoosewhethertofulfillitsoastomaintaintherecipient’snegativeface.Inadditiontotheinterrogativesentenceusedabove,conditionalsentencescanalsoachievethisgoal.Theemergenceof“if”meansthatrecipientshavetherighttomaketheirownchoices.Translatingdirectrequestintoif-clauseisalsooneofthemainwaystomaintainnegativefaceinEBC.Strategy2:MinimizetheimpositionIjustwanttoaskifyoucanextendthevalidperiodoftheLetterofCredittonextmonth.(2)I’msorrytodisturbyou,butwemuststressthatourinspectioniscarriedoutinfullaccordancewiththecontract.Inbothexamples,therecipient’snegativefaceisthreatenedbythewriter.However,theuseoftheword“just”willmoderatethetone,whichavoidsdirectlycollidingwiththerecipient.Therefore,theimposingwordscanonlypartiallyretaintherecipient’snegativeface.Onewaytopartiallysaverecipients’negativefaceistoshowthatthewriterknowstheserequirements,andtakethisintoaccountwhenimplementingfreetradeagreements.Whenusing“but”forsomemitigation,criticismmustbeimplementedintheformofanagreementorpartialagreement.Theeasingwordsbefore“but”pavedthewayfortheemergenceofnegativeinformation.Strategy3:ApologizeWeareverysorryfortheshortage.Itwasmuchourregretthatweheardthegoodsyouorderedwasdamagedatsea.Intheaboveexamples,thewriterindicatesthatheorshehasidentifiedtheinfringementandthewriterhascorrectedthematterbydirectapology.Theabilitytoapologizetoavoidconflictcanmaintaintheidealrelationshipandpromotesolidarityduringtheinteractioninthiscase.Strategy4:GentlypointoutthedebtoftheotherpartyoradmityourowndebttosatisfytheotherpartyWewouldbegratefulforyourearlydelivery.Wewillhavethepleasuretoarrangeeverythingforyou.Accordingtotheexamples,executingthisstrategyrequiresfrequentuseofexpressionssuchas“Iwillbegratefulifyou...”and“Icaneasilydoitforyou”.ThewritercaneasilyresolvetheFTAsbyassertingtotherecipienthisowndebtornotbearinganyoftherecipient’sdebt.Inexample(1),thewriterdirectlyacknowledgesthathehasassumeddebtforearlydelivery,whichisimposeddirectlyontherecipient.Forexample(2),thewritersatisfiestherecipient’srespectwhilemakingtherecipientgrateful.3.2TheApplicationofPolitenessStrategiesinCBC3.2.1PositiveStrategiesinCBCTheChinesepourmoreattentionintotheoverallharmony.Thespiritofunityandcooperationisalsoindispensable.Therefore,thecoreand