Focuses on how to convey bad news in English business correspondence only

PART A: INTRODUCTION 1. Rationale The event that Vietnam joined WTO this year is so meaningful. Vietnam had been waiting for this for a long time before it was officially a member of this organization. This event will help our country to develop more quickly and it helps Vietnam to catch up with the speed of economic development of other countries. It also eases the international business transactions, which are becoming more important than ever before. International business transactions are an effective way of communication as they enable the communication of every country in the world. The international business communication is very important. Lockers (1992:14) states: “Good communication is worth every minute it takes and every penny it costs”. Business communication can be taken in the form of face-to-face meetings or of written communication known as business correspondence. Business correspondence takes a very large share in business communication as business associates who desire transactions quickly are in different distance places and are unable to frequently travel a long way for every single business discussion. Every businessman would like their business to run smoothly without any troubles as company closed down, orders are refused or complaints are made. However, it is too perfect business. In business transactions, it is common for businessmen to write business letters that convey bad news. Bad news certainly displeases readers and may cause destruction in relationship between business partners. Therefore, knowing how to write a good letter conveying bad news is essential for the survival of a business. With the hope of finding out how English writers write bad-news letters, the writer does hope that her findings will be very useful for everyone who cares about bad-new business English letters. 2. Aims of the study The study aims at Studying the ways to convey bad news in English business correspondence; Finding out some strategies in conveying bad news in English business correspondence; Studying the way to convey bad news in some kinds of letters: letter of rejecting a complaint, turning down a credit and refusing an order to help the teaching and the learning of commerce English… Finding out how to create goodwill in conveying bad news in English business correspondence. Giving some implications in writing a good bad-news letter. Research Questions: 1. How do English writers convey bad news in English business correspondence? 2. Which strategy is preferred in conveying bad news in business letters? 3. How do they write to create goodwill in their bad-news letters? 3. Methods of the study This thesis uses the methods of description, analysis, and statistics in linguistic study. A number of materials on applied linguistics, notably on speech acts and politeness strategies are studied to build up a theoretical background for my thesis. Data used in this thesis are mainly collected from textbooks and authentic English written by native English speakers. The writer also uses a plenty of business letters in the book Oxford Handbook of Commercial Correspondence published by Oxford University Press in 2003, written by A. Ashley. 4. Scope of the study This thesis focuses on how to convey bad news in English business correspondence only. It describes common goodwill techniques in writing English business letters. Three kinds of bad-news business letters are analyzed are: Letters of refusing a complaint Letters of turning down a credit Letters of refusing an order From the writer’s point of view, these kinds of letters are the most likely to cause Face Threatening Act (FTA) to readers who may have negative attitude towards the messages sent. However, during everyday business transactions, bad-news messages are always available in the three kinds of letter. What is more, time and reference constraints are also the barrier for the extension in the scope of the study. For the reasons above, the writer only focuses on the above-mentioned matters in her research. 5. Design of the study Part A is an introduction presenting the rationale of the study, the aims, the scope, the method and the design of the study. Part B consists of 3 chapters: Chapter 1 presents the theoretical background of this work. Firstly, the notion of, and the background of speech acts are provided. The emphasis will be on dimensions and types of speech acts, face and politeness and the act of breaking bad news. Chapter 2 is the study which deals with how to convey bad news in English business correspondence. Some strategies are employed in direct and indirect approaches and some findings are given out. Chapter 3 provides implications to write bad-news letters. Part C is the conclusion, the summaries of the whole thesis. PART B: DEVELOPMENT CHAPTER ONE: THEORETICAL BACKGROUND 1.1.Speech Acts and the act of breaking bad news Speech Act theory was originally initiated by the Oxford philosopher, J. L. Austin in 1930s and was expounded in a series of lectures which he gave at Hardvard in 1955. In his book How to do things with words, Austin argues that when we use languages, we are performing certain acts. Traditionally, philosophers have to distinguish between actions and speaking; on the basis that speaking about something is quite different from doing it. For example, a woman says, “ It is very hot in here”. She doesn’t want to inform that it is hot but want the listener to open the window or turn on the fan. Those kinds of actions via utterances for the purpose of communicating are called “speech acts”. In English, they are commonly given such specific labels as apologizing, complaining, requesting, inviting, informing, complimenting or promising etc. Breaking bad news is a kind of speech act. When speakers break bad news, they are performing an act, that is the act of informing bad news Bad news is a kind of news that makes hearers sad, unhappy or bad. Nobody welcomes bad news. And thus the act of breaking bad news is an act to say something that disappoints hearers and makes hearers displeased, disappointed and depressed. For this reason, speech acts theory will help the writer a lot in her study. 1.1.1. Dimensions of speech acts Speech acts are defined by Hymes (1972) as the acts we perform when we speak – such as agreeing, complaining, requesting, apologizing, promising, approving, informing and so on. Austin believes that a single speech act actually contains three separate but related acts: locutionary acts, illocutionary acts and perlocutionary acts. Locutionary act: When making an utterance, a speaker performs a locutionary act, an act of saying something, with a sense and reference. It is simply the act of producing a linguistically well-formed, and thus, meaningful expression. For example: When making an utterance of breaking bad news, a speaker performs a locutionary act, an act of breaking bad news. This utterance used in breaking bad news is meaningful because it informs bad news. Illocutionary act: The illocutionary act is the function of the utterance that the speaker has in mind, the communicative purpose intended or achieved by the utterance. For example: When a speaker performs an act of breaking bad news, the speaker thinks that the news informed is bad and the communicative purpose intended is achieved as the speaker breaks bad news in his/her utterance. Perlocutionary act: the perlocutionary act refers to the hearer’s recognition of the illocutionary act. As a consequence, the hearer may feel amused, annoyed, displeased, surprised, or pleased. For example: In uttering an act of breaking bad news, the speaker thinks that the hearer may feel annoyed or displeased when being informed the news. Speech acts tend to concentrate largely on illocutions, locutions and perlocutions coming before and after the illocutionary act, although important, are of less central interest. When Austin first began his study of speech acts, he attempted first of all to distinguish between a class of utterances which he called “performative” and those which he termed “constatives”. Performatives are a special group of utterances of the saying of which actually perform the action named by the verb. For example: - act of marriage: I hereby claim that you are husband and wife - act of naming a ship: I name this ship the Saucy Sue. - act of closing a meeting: I declare this meeting closed - act of wager: I bet you a winner - act of apology: I apologize - act of informing: I hereby inform you that ... etc... However, the act of breaking bad new tends to highly threaten the hearer’s face and thus it is less likely to appear in performatives to avoid an FTA in uttering the sentence. 1.1.2. Types of speech acts Speech acts can be classified according to how they affect the social interaction between the speakers and the hearers. The most basic categorization (Searle, 1969) consists of five different types of speech acts: Declaratives: are those kinds of speech acts that change the world in their utterance. For example, the priest claims: “I hereby claim that you are husband and wife”. This claim will change the state of the two single people to married ones. Representatives: are those kinds of speech acts that state what the speaker believes to be the case. A representative can be either true or false as the speaker asserts, says, concludes, describes, etc. For example, “the Earth is round” when saying the utterance, the speaker believes that the Earth is round. Directives: are those kinds of speech acts that speakers use to get someone else to do something such as commands, orders, requests, and suggestions. For example, “Wash clothes!, the speaker wants the listener to wash clothes. Expressives: are those kinds of speech acts that state what the speaker feels. They express psychological state and can be statements of pleasure, pain, likes, dislikes, joy or sorrow. For example: “I am lonely”, the speaker feels lonely. Commissives: are those kinds of speech acts that commit the speaker to do something such as promises, threats, etc. For example. “I will give it to you tomorrow” is considered to be a promise. The speakers intend to do what is said. To sum up, speech acts are the acts we perform when we speak. The speech act theory helps to interpret the function of language in communicating, which plays an indispensable role in interaction. In studying the categorization by Searle, I find myself that the act of breaking bad news belongs to representatives because when the speaker informs the bad news, s/he believes that the news informed is true. That is why it may cause an FTA. In informing the bad news, the speaker has to do the thing that s/he knows will threaten the hearer’s face and certainly s/he does not want to do so. The hearer, moreover, does not want to receive the bad news and s/he may have the negative reaction to the news informed. If the speaker is not careful about word-choice as well as way to present the bad news, a break in business relationship is unavoidable (see chapter 2). Another way of classifying speech act, according to Searle 1969:60) is based on the structure and the use of word. And according to him, speech act can be divided into two opposite ways of informing something: Direct and indirect speech acts. Direct speech acts and indirect speech acts are distinguished from each other. Indirectness is defined as “those cases in which one illocutionary act is performed indirectly by the way of “performing another” (Searle 1969, p60). In direct speech acts the speaker says what s/he means, while in indirect speech acts the speaker means more than what s/he says (Searle 1980, p.8), for example speakers perform one illocutionary act implicitly by way of performing illocutionary act explicitly. For example, instead of telling a student that s/he is late for the lecture, the teacher may ask a question “What is the time now?”. That is the indirect act and the direct act is to ask what time is. Concerning why indirectness is used, Yule (1996, p.56) writes “indirect speech acts are generally associated with greater politeness in English than direct speech act”. 1.1.3. Breaking bad news Life is not always comfortable and enjoyable and it can be disappointing at times. Problems like systems break down, mistakes are made, deadlines go unmet, complaints and credit are turned down, orders are refused are not rare. In this case, the speaker has to inform these problems – known as breaking bad news to the hearer. It is not always easy to be the deliverer of ‘bad news’ to your colleagues, your customers, or to anyone else for that matter. The act of breaking bad news is known as a speech act as it informs bad news to hearers, i.e., it is the act of informing. For example: when the writer says: “we can not offer credit facilities of any kind at present owing to inflation”. In saying this sentence, the writer believes that s/he cannot offer credit facilities. Searle (1976, p.44) argues that each type of illocutionary act requires certain conditions for the successful and felicitous performance of that act and these he calls felicity conditions. Searle identifies four different kinds of felicity conditions: propositional content conditions or rules, preparatory conditions or rules, sincerity conditions or rule and essential conditions. These conditions relate, on the other hand, to the belief and attitudes of the speaker and the hearer, and, on the other hand, to the belief and attitudes of linguistic device for communication. The act of breaking bad news should meet the requirement of Searle’s felicity conditions, if the speaker wants to have a successful and felicitous performance. For me, the act of breaking bad news should satisfy the four conditions belows: 1. General condition: it focuses on the background knowledge of the Speaker and the Hearer. That is who the speaker and the hearer are. How they are related to each other and in what aspect. They can communicate with the full understanding of the information sent or not. 2. Content condition: In the act of breaking bad news, the message sent is bad-news message. The speaker is responsible for informing the hearer of the news and the hearer has not been informed the news yet or the speaker believes that the hearer has not been informed the news. 3. Sincerity condition: This condition concerns about the sincerity of the speaker when informing the news. The speaker means what s/he say and the hearer believes in what the speaker says. 4. Essential condition: In the act of breaking bad news, the speaker has to or is responsible to inform the news to the hearer. The speaker believes that the hearer should be informed the news. These four conditions are of vital importance when breaking bad news. The act of breaking bad news is mainly to inform the news that is bad, unhappy to the hearer. The hearer is considered not to have been informed the bad news yet. (In the case that the speaker knows that the hearer has the information but still say out the bad news, this is out of the question of this thesis because it is not the act of informing). 1.2. Face and Politeness 1.2.1 Face and face-want In everyday social interaction, to be respected and recognized, people try to keep their public self-image, which is called face. In interaction, “the positive image or impression of oneself that one shows or intends to show to the other participants is called face” (Richard, J et all 1985:102. Longman Dictionary of Applied Linguistic). Face want: Within everyday social interaction, people generally behave as if their public self-image, or their face wants, will be respected. By doing that way, people can maintain their face. It’s their face-work Hudson defined that face-work is “the way in which a person maintains his face”, which is carried out by presenting a consistent image to other people, so that one can gain or lose face by “improving or spoiling” this image. Hudson stated that through what one says or how to say it, the speaker presents a personal image for others to evaluate. If a speaker says something that represents a threat to another individual’s expectations regarding self-image, it is described as a face-threatening act (FTA) Alternatively, given a possibility that some actions might be as a threat to another’s face, the speaker can say something to lessen the possible threat. This is called a face saving act (FSA) Besides, it should be noted that some certain speech acts flatter face such as compliment, thanks or offer. This is called a face-flattering act (FFA). Both an FTA or FFA might be the cause of the risk of losing face. To avoid this risk, either an FSA should be used or greater attention should be paid to the different use of routine and speech acts in different cultural communities. Deriving from the theory of Goffman, Brown and Levinson (1987:61ff) we can have two related aspects of face. + Negative face: the basic claim to territories, personal preserves, right to non-distraction – i.e., to freedom of action and freedom of imposition. + Positive face: the positive consistent self-image or “personality” (crucially including the desire that this self-image be appreciated and approved of) claimed by interaction. Face-work, therefore, proves to play an important part in making a conversation work either negatively or positively. When the face is kept, the relationship is maintained without much difficulty. When we write business letters, conveying bad news can potentially cause the loss of the reader’s face. Therefore, breaking bad news can be considered as an FTA. It risk to threaten news receiver’s face. Also, when we turn down a complaint, a credit or an order, we may disappoint receivers, break the reader’s face and cause serious misunderstanding between business partners if the bad news is not written out in a way they save the reader’s face. This may cause the risk of breaking the business relationship. Thus, in order to avoid this risk, politeness strategies is effectively used to maintain face, and thus, to maintain a business relationship between the reader and the writer. 1.2.2 Politeness In order to maintain each other’s face, the interlocutors have to take into account the consideration of politeness. Politeness is defined in Collins Cobuild English Language Dictionary as “things you say or do simply because it is social correct to do or say them, rather than because you mean them sincerely”. What should be discussed, then, is in what standard people can judge something they (or others) do or say means politeness, or rather, in what view something is socially correct. This issue should be considered under each other culture for judging things. In accordance with two kinds of faces in Brown and Levinson’s view: negative and positive faces, politeness is divided into two types: negative and positive politeness. Positive politeness, according to Brown and Levinson, is concerned with the actions people take to maintain their face and that of the other people they are interacting with. Positive face has to do with presenting a good image of oneself and securing the approval of others. Positive politeness consists of acts, which are designed to preserve or restore the Hearer’s positive face, by stressing the Speaker’s sympathy with a social closeness to the Hearer. One linguistic way of doing this would be to link the Speaker and Hearer together by using the pronoun forms: we/us and our Negative politeness is the effort not to be coercive against imposition on others, in other words, not to poke one’s nose into other’s privacy. Negative politeness consists of acts which are designed to preserve or restore the Hearer’s negative face, by expressing the speaker’s reluctance to impose his or her wants on the Hearer. One way of doing this would be to say something l