HANOI UNIVERSITY

English Department
Room 215 Building C
Km 9 Nguyen Trai Road, Dai Mo, Ha Noi, Viet Nam

PRAGMATICS FINAL ASSIGNMENT

Group Members: Students ID:

Nguyễn Huy Hoàng 1.​ 2207010094
Nguyễn Huyền Trang 2.​ 2207010284

Title: A Pragmatic Analysis of Politeness, Indirectness, and Implicature

in a Failed First Date

Name of Lecturer: Nguyen Thuy Duong (PhD) Class: Pragmatics 01

Date Submitted: 04/05/2026 Student Contact Telephone No./Student Email Address:

hoangcv1012@[Link]
I. Introduction
Pragmatics is an essential lens for decoding real-life social interactions, as it focuses more on
understanding the intended meaning that the speaker wants to communicate rather than the
literal words (Yule, 1996). In some very sensitive environments, being overly direct and
explicit might be insensitive and create face-threatening acts. To mitigate this, individuals
usually use other safer communicative strategies such as implicature, reference and politeness
when communicating. This paper will analyze a conversation of a couple who had a failed
first date to demonstrate how speakers utilize politeness, indirectness, and implicature to
navigate social awkwardness, protect mutual face, and deliver implicit intentions.
II. Analysis of pragmatic data
1.​ Politeness/Indirectness
When the girl asked the boy if his hairstyle was slightly different from the picture
online, the boy responded with a question that mirrored hers: “Your profile pictures must
have been taken a while ago, right?” Furthermore, the fact that he did not offer a direct
comment but instead used a rhetorical question demonstrates indirectness. In this context, the
boy speaker wants to express his dissatisfaction with the girl's comment that he looks
different from his photos. Then, with a mild tone of criticism or slight disappointment in his
question, the boy implies that her appearance differs from his expectations and that she may
look less attractive in person than in the photos she posted on the dating platform. However,
the boy didn't want to make a rude comment, so he chose to express his feelings indirectly.
The girl participant followed similar reasoning steps to Searle's "10-step derivation” (Searle,
1979) and noticed that the boy was saying something ambiguous through the word
"different". Partly because she cannot determine whether it is a literal compliment or
criticism, she is forced to ask for clarification to understand the actual linguistic behavior.
However, she also recognized the negative meaning behind the boy’s comment, so she
responded defensively with a series of questions: "Why? Do I look that different? Wait, am I
pretty or not? How do I look today?". Moreover, although the boy uses indirect speech acts to
avoid face-threatening acts, the girl interprets it negatively and she reacts defensively, leading
to a failure to maintain smooth social interaction.
After a short conversation, the boy asked the girl if she wanted to pursue a serious
relationship. The girl politely gave a response that avoided directly answering the question:
“I’m kinda just focusing on myself right now.” By using declarative sentences that represent
her personal condition, she successfully uses them to function as a refusal and avoidance.
Instead of saying a negative statement response directed at the man, for example, "I don't
want to be in a relationship with you", she turned this answer into a personal issue, which
creates a positive face to help protect the boy's self-esteem. This shows she does not want to
refuse too bluntly or create awkwardness for both, introducing negative politeness. According
to Brown and Levinson 's theory (1987), the girl may display a negative face - politeness, as a
form of redressive action. She wants to protect her freedom and avoid putting the boy in a
position of public rejection. Additionally, the girl used words like "kinda" and "just", which
softened the assertiveness of the rejection. The speaker's intention here is to create ambiguity,
making the message less aggressive and helping maintain cooperation in the conversation.
The boy correctly infers the indirect message and responds with "no rush", confirming his
understanding and preserving social harmony. Both reached an agreement, "Yeah, exactly",
and the conversation did not descend into awkward silence or argument. As a result,
politeness helps maintain a stable social relationship despite the recent rejection.
2.​ Implicature
First of all, when the female explicitly asked whether the man found her appearance
attractive, he redirected the compliment towards her clothes: "I mean… that dress looks
really good on you". In this situation, the male speaker generates a particularized
conversational implicature by not answering directly about her appearance, which highlights
a flouting of the Maxim of Relation (Grice, 1975). Such an attempt to sidestep a direct
compliment is an example of topic-shifting, which can be seen as a way to address someone's
positive face and avoid a potential threat posed by a straightforward answer (Culpeper and
Haugh, 2014). However, this move is pragmatically unsuccessful in strengthening the
relationship because the speaker fails to offer the explicit validation the hearer desires, thus
further increasing the emotional gap between them.

After that, during the meal, the man made an observation about the girl’s eating speed:
"Wow… you eat so fast, huh," despite her second bite of food. This is another instance of
flouting the Maxim of Quality (Grice, 1975) in that the speaker clearly knows that his claim
is false but uses it deliberately for the sake of a joke. As Dynel (2014) claims that the
intention is to create a light atmosphere using humor or to ease any existing tension when
speakers are allowed to lie in certain contexts, namely in jokes and games. Nevertheless, in
this case, it fails utterly because the hearer is unable to interpret the implicature and focuses
solely on its explicature instead, leading to a confused reaction: "Wait, what?". As a result,
the speaker had no choice but to reveal his intentions: "Haha, I’m kidding", thus cancelling
his earlier comment and interrupting the conversation, as well as making the dating
atmosphere more awkward.

Finally, at the end of their date, after the man asked whether they would meet again,
the girl replied: "Yeah… maybe." In this situation, this expression implies a scalar
implicature - a type of generalized conversational implicature, since the word "maybe"
automatically discounts stronger options from the information scale, like "definitely" and
"yes" (Birner, 2013). Contrary to the two previous instances, this part of the conversation is
highly successful in conveying its pragmatic meaning when the male speaker accurately
decodes the implicit rejection and politely responds: “Cool, I'll text you". Therefore, this
sentence plays an effective role in concluding the interaction smoothly without causing any
severe face threats to either party.

III. Conclusion
In conclusion, the analysis of this failed date illustrates how the use of indirectness,
politeness and implicature functions as a vital means for saving face for both parties,
allowing them to manage their rejection and embarrassment without engaging in direct
conflict. Beyond this specific interaction, these pragmatic strategies hold profound
significance in Vietnam’s high-context culture in which saving face and maintaining
harmonious interpersonal relationships are crucial factors (Nguyen, 2020). Therefore, indirect
speech and conversation implicatures might not serve as signs of ambiguity but as essential
signs of tact and politeness in everyday communication.
 REFERENCES

Birner, B. J. (2013). Introduction to pragmatics. Wiley-Blackwell.

Brown, P., & Levinson, S. C. (1987). Politeness: Some universals in language usage.
Cambridge University Press. Retrieved from
[Link]
e

Culpeper, J., & Haugh, M. (2014). Pragmatics and the English language. Palgrave
Macmillan.

Dynel, M. (2014). Isn't it ironic? Defining the scope of humorous irony. Journal of
Pragmatics, 68, 61–81. Retrieved from
[Link]
ope_of_humorous_irony

Grice, H. P. (1975). Logic and conversation. In P. Cole & J. L. Morgan (Eds.), Syntax and
semantics: Vol. 3. Speech acts (pp. 41–58). Academic Press.

Nguyen, T. P. L. (2020). High-low context communication: Vietnamese style. Tạp chí Khoa
học Trường Đại học Hải Phòng, (39). Retrieved from
[Link]
[Link]

Searle, J. R. (1979). Expression and meaning: Studies in the theory of speech acts.
Cambridge University Press. ttps://[Link]/10.1017/cbo9780511609213

Yule, G. (1996). Pragmatics. Oxford University Press.

 APPENDIX

Transcript of the failed first date conversation

The following transcript provides the primary linguistic data analyzed in the study. It
records a face-to-face conversation between a couple during their first date at a
restaurant, having previously connected through an online dating platform.

Boy: Hello. Finally get to meet you in person.

Girl: Hi! Yeah, nice to meet you. You didn’t have trouble finding this place, right?
Boy: Nah, it was pretty easy. I got here a bit early, actually.
Girl: Oh, I like your blue shirt. And did you just get a haircut or something?
Boy: Yeah, like two days ago. You can tell?
Girl: A little. It looks different from your pics.
Boy: Yeah… I was gonna say. Your profile pictures must have been taken a while ago,
right? (Indirectness)
Girl: Why? Do I look that different? Wait, am I pretty or not? How do I look today?
Boy: I mean… that dress looks really good on you. (Flouting Relation)
Girl: Thank you.

(During the meal)

Boy: Have you been here before?
Girl: Once or twice. The food’s pretty tempting.
Boy: You should try this one, it’s actually really good.
Girl: Okay, wait, let me finish this first.
Boy: Wow… you eat so fast, huh. I’m already done. (Flouting Quality)
Girl: Wait, what? I’m literally still on my second bite.
Boy: Haha, I’m kidding. Take your time.

(After the meal)

Boy: So, how was your day?
Girl: Pretty normal, just work and stuff. Did you come straight from work?
Boy: Yeah, didn’t even have time to go home.
Girl: Ohh, that explains the formal look.
Boy: You seem pretty chill.
Girl: I try… depends on the day, and the person I met. So what do you usually do after work?
Boy: Honestly, nothing too exciting. Just go to the gym or hang out with friends sometimes.
What about you?
Girl: Same, kinda. I’ve been trying to spend more time on myself lately.
Boy: So… are you looking for something serious right now or just seeing how it goes?
Girl: Umm… I’m kinda just focusing on myself right now (Negative face politeness -
Indirectness)
Boy: Yeah, so no rush anyway.
Girl: Yeah, exactly.
Boy: I’m glad we did this, though. It’s actually pretty chill.
Girl: Yeah, I thought it’d be more awkward, honestly.
Boy: Same. But you’re easy to talk to.
Girl: Thanks, I tried.

(Ending)
Boy: Anyway… I had a really good time tonight. Maybe we could hang out again sometime?
Girl: Yeah… maybe (Scalar implicature). We’ll see how things go.
Boy: Cool, I’ll text you.
Girl: Okay, text me when you get home.
Boy: Will do. Get home safe, yeah?
Girl: You too.