-
Politeness in French/Dutch Negotiations
Per van der Wijst Jan Ulijn
Department of Language and Literature Department of Organisation Science
Tilburg University Eindhoven University of Technology
P.O. Box 90153 P.O. Box 513
5000 LE TILBURG 5600 MB EINDHOVEN
The Netherlands The Netherlands
Instruction for study: try to analyse if the Dutch-French findings in this experimental study could be generalised to all Anglo-Germanic and all Latin cultures, based upon your own experience in- and outside the course.
Observations of French and Dutch businessmen being trained in negotiation techniques suggest that the French negotiator is more concerned about face needs than his Dutch interlocutor (Merk, 1987). In simulations of French/Dutch negotiations Merk found that Dutch speakers were more direct than their French interlocutors. Furthermore, this Dutch directness seemed to influence the outcome in a negative manner (see Van der Wijst & Ulijn, 1991). Interviews with business people from various European countries confirmed the important role that differences in discourse style can play in business encounters (Ulijn & Gorter, 1989). These differences in discourse style are all the more important since unsuccessful negotiators appear to use such cultural differences as an explanation for a lack of agreement (Hendriks, 1991). Unfortunately too little is known about the actual linguistic behaviour of negotiators in cross cultural encounters to draw firm conclusions about the impact of this behaviour on the negotiation itself. In this paper the verbal style of French and Dutch negotiators will be examined in order to elucidate the question raised by Merk (1987) whether the discourse of French and Dutch negotiators actually differs in directness.
Indirect language use is often related to politeness: one might assume that the more polite the negotiator intends to be, the more he will use indirect language. Therefore this study explores the possibilities of analyzing this directness of language behaviour by means of politeness strategies, more precisely by using Brown and Levinson's (1987) classification of politeness strategies. Inventories are made of politeness strategies within the language of French and Dutch negotiators involved in a negotiation simulation. By distinguishing between the different stages of the negotiation the question will be addressed whether the directness of a negotiator is a structural behavioural characteristic of a negotiator during the complete negotiation, or whether it occurs more frequently at certain specific moments. Clearly, the central issue in this respect is the possible difference between the language behaviour of French and Dutch negotiators. In order to obtain greater insight into these issues, three simulated French/Dutch negotiations were analyzed. Before going into the results of this study, an outline will be given of the theoretical framework from which these analyses were made.
1 Politeness Strategies
Directness in language behaviour is linked to the concepts of politeness and face. People act in order to maintain face or, more precisely, not to lose face. In particular during negotiations this need can have an important impact on the communicative behaviour of the participants. Brown points out that a negotiator is always confronting the "dilemma that grows out of the necessity for yielding on the one hand and the strategic value of not yielding (...) in order to increase one's gains" (1977: 277). This paradox was first described by Stevens (1963). From the perspective of a negotiator, the concept of losing face is almost exclusively linked to yielding, which means losing the image of being firm.
In this study we will follow a broader approach to the concept of face, namely the description developed by Goffman (1967). Every member of a society has a number of basic needs and wants that are related to face. A distinction can be drawn between needs resulting from negative and needs resulting from positive face (Brown & Levinson, 1987:62). Negative face is the need of every individual to be free from imposition, his right to have `personal territories'. By positive face is meant: the positive self-image, or `personality' an individual has. Individuals generally act in order to satisfy these needs. This is referred to as the facekeeping principle.
The facekeeping principle functions interactively: speakers not only act in accordance with their own needs, they are usually also aware of their interlocutor's own needs to maintain face. This awareness causes the speaker to use different politeness strategies in case he has to carry out a face threatening act (hence FTA), such as the rejection of a proposal. Usually these politeness strategies mitigate or hedge the exact illocutionary force of the FTA and are aimed at limiting the possible damage to the interlocutor's face. Not surprisingly, Brown and Levinson refer to politeness strategies that are directed at positive face-needs as positive politeness and to strategies directed at negative face-needs as negative politeness. The term negative politeness can however create confusion, suggesting that it is the opposite of genuine politeness. We therefore adopt the terminology used by Scollon and Scollon (1981), who propose solidarity politeness (SP) for positive politeness and deference politeness (DP) for negative politeness.
In their detailed study of a corpus of three unrelated languages (Tzeltal, Tamil and English) Brown and Levinson (1987) (hence: B&L) give an exhaustive overview of the different linguistic realisations of the two types of politeness strategies. The most striking result of this comparative study was the remarkable similarity of linguistic means these languages use to express politeness.[1]
On the basis of this corpus B&L developed a theory that predicts which politeness strategy a speaker will use in a given context. The core element of this theory is a formula (1) that enables a speaker to determine the weight of an FTA, the extent to which a speech act threatens the face of the interlocutor. The higher the weight of an FTA, the more politeness will be needed. This weight is influenced by three factors: 1) the Power distance between the speaker and interlocutor, 2) the Social distance between them and 3) the absolute Rank of Imposition of an FTA in a given culture.
(1) P + S + R = W
Using the example of requesting the formula can be applied: the P-factor expresses the difference in hierarchical rank between speakers: requesting something from a superior (=high P-difference) needs to be done with more politeness than asking the same thing from a colleague equal in rank. The same holds for requesting something of a total stranger (=high S-difference). This requires more politeness than requesting the same of a good friend. The R-factor is represented primarily by what is asked for: borrowing someone's car (high R-value) is more difficult than borrowing the same person's pencil.
The politeness strategies from which a speaker can choose were classified by B&L into five categories of superstrategies (see Table 1). If the FTA is lightweight the speaker can perform the FTA baldly on record, while a heavy FTA can lead to the strategy of avoiding performance of the FTA.
Table 1. Brown-Levinson’s superstrategies of politeness (1987)
Weight / Strategyminimal / 1. bald on record
2. solidarity politeness
3. deference politeness
4. off record
(5. avoidance)
Table 1 makes it clear that the different strategies are hierarchically ranked: SP is (obviously) more polite than bald on record; DP is more redressive than SP and so on. The categorization of politeness strategies continues within the strategies 2, 3 and 4 into different linguistic realizations, all ranked by the degree of imposition they entail. In this study we will concentrate on the SP and DP superstrategies. In Table 2 a description is given of the different linguistic forms a politeness strategy can take in these two categories.
Table 2. Solidarity politeness and deference politeness
solidarity politeness / deference politeness1. notice, attend to Hearer(hence: H)
(his interests, wants, needs, goods)
2. exaggerate interest, approval, sympathy with H
3. intensify interest to H
4. use in-group identity markers
5. seek agreement
6. avoid disagreement
7. presuppose/raise/assert common ground
8. joke
9. assert or presuppose S’s knowledge of and concern for H’s wants
10. offer, promise
11. be optimistic
12. include both S and H in the activity
13. give (or ask for) reasons
14. assume or assert reciprocity
15. give gifts to H (goods, sympathy, understanding, cooperation) / 1. be conventionally indirect
2. hedge
3. be pessimistic
4. minimise the imposition
5. give deference
6. apologise
7. impersonalise S and H: avoid the pronouns I and you
8. state the face threatening act as a general rule
9. nominalise
10. go on record as incurring a debt, or as not indepting H
As has been stated before, these linguistic strategies were found in the languages of different cultures. This cross cultural similarity in occurrence, however, does not automatically imply a cross cultural similarity in the actual use of politeness strategies. Differences of this kind are also referred to as sociopragmatic differences (Thomas, 1983). A well documented example is provided by speakers of Japanese, who have great difficulty rejecting proposals (Graham, 1983; Tung, 1984; Weiss, 1987; Adler & Graham, 1989). In Western cultures the rejection of a proposal is less problematic but still considered a dispreferred speech act (Atkinson & Heritage, 1984; Levinson, 1983). For this reason politeness markers are used in order to mitigate the threatening character of such a rejection.
It is not unlikely that sociopragmatic differences exist between French and Dutch speakers, which can lead to misunderstandings or at least to the conversational friction mentioned earlier in this paper. This issue, however, is beyond the scope of the study, since it calls for an in-depth comparative analysis of the realisation of different speech acts by French and Dutch speakers (see Van der Wijst, Meijers and Noordman, in prep.). The inventorization of the linguistic markers as realisations of politeness is a first step towards a full contrastive analysis of French and Dutch verbal behaviour within the context of negotiations. For this purpose transcripts of the language of French and Dutch negotiators involved in three negotiations were examined.
2 An Analysis of Three French-Dutch Negotiations
Research into the language behaviour of negotiators can be seriously hampered by difficulties in data collection. Recordings and transcripts of authentic negotiations are virtually impossible to obtain, the main reason being the understandable resistance of negotiators to all equipment that records their activities. Nevertheless some studies exist which are based on `natural' negotiations (Stalpers, 1987; Lampi, 1986; Van der Wijst & Noordman, submitted for publication). Although the importance of the insights gained from these studies is unquestionable, it is difficult to make more general claims based on these studies. A comparison of the individual studies is often problematic, since the background factors that could be responsible for the behaviour of a negotiator are almost impossible to trace (see Hendriks (1991) for a methodology that copes with this problem). Most of these shortcomings can be overcome by studying negotiators in a simulated negotiation.
A simulated negotiation is often used as a tool for bringing about improvements in the negotiation skills of businessmen. Generally, the simulations are registered on videotape and shown to the participants afterwards. An important advantage of this method is the possibility of repeating the same negotiation with other participants and comparing the results. In addition to the obvious educational benefits, this method offers the researcher opportunities for studying various aspects of the negotiation. Comparing simulations of the same negotiation situation enables the researcher to derive a more general picture of the factor of interest. Since a great number of crucial background factors are the same for the simulations, it is possible to assess in detail the influence of those factors on the variable being studied. Furthermore our own experiences with simulations show that negotiators quickly forget that they are playing a role. Often, the negotiators themselves confirm this impression afterwards. In our view, these factors increase the ecological validity of our data. For this reason we chose to study French and Dutch negotiators involved in a business training course. We selected three recordings of a simulation that was carried out within the framework of this course.
2.1. Method and material: The Negotiation Game Facture
The negotiation game Facture was specially designed as a negotiation simulation for Dutch businessmen who have to deal with French companies. Before the simulation each negotiator receives a file with the relevant background information, necessary for carrying out the negotiation. The participants have to solve the following problem.
A Dutch road-building company has been working for several years with equipment from a French company, that produces among another things cranes and bulldozers. Two weeks after the expiration of the guarantee period, one of the cranes breaks down. French engineers come to Holland and repair the machine. Shortly after this, the Dutch company receives a bill for the repair. The French engineers needed five days to do their job, so the Dutch company owes a considerable amount of money. Since the Dutch company expected the French dealer to prolong the guarantee, they are unpleasantly surprised by the invoice. They decide to go to Paris to discuss the matter directly with the French managers.
The game consists of two parts. The first part is a telephone conversation, in which one of the managing directors of the Dutch firm has to announce his visit and make an appointment with the French manager. The second part of the negotiation takes place in the office of the Frenchman. Two representatives of the Dutch company visit him.
Two of the three simulations took place in a university room, with equipment for video registrations. The third simulation was recorded during an in-company training. The simulation took place in one of the company's offices. The duration of the telephone conversation was between 5 and 10 minutes. The duration of the face-to-face conversation ranged from 20 to 40 minutes.
2.2. Subjects: The Participants in the Negotiations
In order to enable as many Dutch businessmen as possible to participate in the game, the Dutch roles in each game were performed by three different participants. One of them took care of the telephone conversation and the two others the face-to-face conversation. The Frenchman, a native speaker in all of the simulations, was active during the entire game. Since we selected three recordings, the total of Dutch participants is 9, eight men and one woman. All Dutch participants had previous experiences in negotiating with French companies. Three different Frenchmen acted as negotiators in the simulations.