Mitigation

Genuine Criticism (GC) is an evaluative expression of annoyance with an attribute in the interlocutor, whose realization may threaten the positive image of both interlocutors. The current study investigates facework and politeness in performing GCsin different contexts and for interlocutors with low social distance and high status in terms of GC realization strategies and mitigation devices that the speakers employ to soften their criticisms. Data were collected from 70 situations from movies in which GCs arise between interactants. The interactants deal with topics that happen in their daily life. The data were transcribed, categorized and analyzed based on the adapted version of criticizing categorization developed by Nguyen (2005, 2013).The results indicate that interactants with low social distance between them and the speakers who possess higher status employ direct strategies more than indirect strategies when they carry out criticism. Besides, the speakers with higher social distance utilize direct criticizing strategies more often. With regard to mitigation strategies, both groups tend to mitigate their criticisms less often. Exploring the strategies that English NSs employ can help EFL material developers realize and depict a better picture of the strategies in learning materials so that potential learning problems are prevented.

This study investigated mitigation in the supervisory discourse of Iranian language teacher supervisors to see what mitigation devices these language teacher supervisors in Iran used to achieve a balance message clarity and politeness when delivering negative feedback. Using convenient sampling, 10 post-observation feedback conferences from Iran Language Institute, Shiraz University Language Center, and Safir English Language Academy in Shiraz, Tehran, and Mashhad were recorded and transcribed. The data were examined using Wajnryb's (1994) typology of mitigation devices. The findings of the study indicated that Iranian language teacher supervisors tended to use what Wajnryb (1994) called “above-the-utterance-level” mitigation, something between “hyper-mitigation” (highly mitigated language) and “hypo-mitigation” (hardly mitigated language) though they could have made a more appropriate use of the host of possible mitigation devices to further soften their rather directive language thereby promoting reflection on the part of the teachers. The most frequently used mitigation devices included qualm indicators, modal verbs, interrogatives, clause structures and hedging modifiers respectively with the rest of the mitigation devices considerably underused indicating that training in supervisory discourse is essential for Iranian language teacher supervisors. The findings hold implications for teacher education programs, language teaching institutes and language teacher supervisors to consider and work on mitigation devices to be able to deliver negative feedback both clearly and politely.