Criticisms and suggestions are face-threatening acts (FTAs) (Brown & Levinson, 1978) as they imply that the object of criticisms and suggestions is either undesirable or needs improvement. Since both speech acts are commonly found in student and staff peer reviews, we should examine how we can make them less face-threatening so that they are accepted with more ease. The present paper: (a) looks at the way criticisms and suggestions are mitigated in ESL students’ written peer reviews, (b) discusses the function of face-saving devices, and (c) considers the implications of the findings for our teaching. For data, I have used peer reviews written by 40 Science Faculty freshmen enrolled in the NUS English Skills course of ES1301 in 1999. Altogether, 61 criticisms and 51 suggestions were identified from the 40 reviews.

Face-Saving Devices

About half of the criticisms and suggestions were given with such face-saving devices as hedges, point-of-view distancing expressions, understatement markers, diminutives, and compliments.

Hedges are “markers of possibility/probability and uncertainty” (Biber, 1988; cited from Hinkel, 1997: 372) which act to reduce “the imposition of beliefs ‘which are costly’ to the reader/hearer” (Leech, 1983). Hedges found in the student reviews include ‘seems’, ‘maybe’, ‘perhaps’, the use of modals (e.g. ‘can’), past tense of verbs (e.g. ‘could have’), and questions.

Example (1): Linking words—could have made more use of proper linking words.

Point-of-View Distancing Expressions include ‘I find’, ‘I think’, and ‘I personally think’. They render a criticism or suggestion less authoritative. By limiting the scope of the claim of knowledge, the writer is making his suggestion a ‘personal’ opinion that may NOT necessarily be shared by everybody.

Example (2): I personally think that the conclusion has no relation to the topic.

Understatement Markers such as ‘quite’ lower the assertive force of a statement and modify the content of a proposition (Hübler, 1983).

Example (3): Last paragraph is quite ambiguous…

In contrast, the use of diminutives, such as ‘a few’, ‘little’, ‘a little bit’, and ‘a bit’, reduces the negative force of a criticism or suggestion.

Example (4): Writer’s language displayed a little discrimination.

Using compliments is the most common way by which the students downgrade their criticisms and suggestions. Such compliments either immediately precede or follow a criticism or suggestion, or they may appear at the beginning or end of a review.

Example (5): The story is very fluent. It does have a topic sentence hidden somewhere in the paragraph. And there are quite a number of evidences to support the topic sentence. But I spotted one grammar mistake… Well, at least this is a good piece of work.

Apart from the mitigated criticisms and suggestions exemplified, about half of the 61 criticisms and 51 suggestions were given directly without any hedging.

Example (6): The introduction is irrelevant, not related to the title. (Criticism)

Example (7): Pay more attention to subj-verb agreement and verb forms. (Suggestion)

According to Brown and Levinson (1978: 73), such bald-on-record criticisms and suggestions are normally not used unless the writer’s want to be efficient overrides his want to maintain the addressee’s face. Previous research (e.g. Johnson & Roen, 1992) reports no such use of direct FTAs by native English speakers in their peer reviews; instead, hedges are used extensively in Anglo-American academic writing. The fact that about half of the criticisms and suggestions in the data belong to the FTA category indicates that the second language speakers of English in this study do show some unique characteristics. This directness may be related to the Singapore culture, where people tend to make more direct requests than native British English speakers (Brown, 1992).

Functions of Face-saving Devices

The face-saving devices used in the reviews most obviously mitigate the face-threatening force of the criticisms and suggestions. Expressions such as ‘I think’, and ‘I find’ put the reviewer in a less powerful position than he otherwise would be by contracting the scope of his claim of knowledge. In contrast, hedges such as ‘if you wish’ and ‘maybe you could’ offer the addressee the option to decide whether or not to carry out the action suggested, thus satisfying the addressee’s desire to have freedom of action and not feel imposed upon.

These politeness strategies also reinforce the inter-relationship between the reviewer and the review receiver (Johnson, 1992). Since the informants of the present study are all peer classmates and therefore have equal claim to power and knowledge, they do not want to sound arrogant. The use of polite expressions brings the writer and reader on par and helps establish rapport and solidarity between them.

Implications

The suggestions and criticisms in our ESL writers’ peer reviews are mitigated as those in native English speakers’ reviews but to a less extent. Consequently, although our students may already be partially competent in using the English language, it is necessary to raise and reinforce their awareness of English pragmatics in our teaching. To avoid cross-cultural miscommunication, non-native English-speaking NUS teaching staff may also want to pay particular attention to English pragmatic norms since they are in constant contact with English speakers throughout the world. In terms of staff peer reviews, it is recommended that criticisms and suggestions be given with optimal face-saving devices so that they are more easily accepted, as everybody has the face want of being appreciated by members of the same community.

References

Biber, D. (1988). Variation across Speech and Writing. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

Brown, A. (1992). Making Sense of Singapore English. Singapore: Federal Publications.

Brown, P. & Levinson, S. (1978). ‘Universals in Language Usage: Politeness Phenomena’. In Goody, E. (Ed.), Questions and Politeness: Strategies in Social Interaction. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. pp. 56-324.

Hinkel, E. (1997). ‘Indirectness in L1 and L2 Academic Writing’. Journal of Pragmatics. Vol. 27. pp. 361-386.

Hübler, A. (1983). Understatements and Hedges in English. Amsterdam: Benjamins.

Johnson, D.M. (1992). ‘Compliments and Politeness in Peer-review Texts. Applied Linguistics. Vol. 13. pp. 52-71.

Johnson, D.M., & Roen, D.H. (1992). ‘Complimenting and Involvement in Peer Reviews: Gender Variation’. Language in Society. Vol. 21. pp. 27-57.

Leech, G. (1983). Principles of Pragmatics. London: Longman.