Politeness
Hawraa Athab Jiyad/ English Department
Introduction
The most influential theory of ‘Politeness’ was formulated in 1978 and revised in 1987 by Brown and Levinson. ‘Politeness’, which represents the interlocutors’ desire to be pleasant to each other through a positive manner of addressing, was claimed to be a universal phenomenon. The gist of the theory is the intention to mitigate ‘Face’ threats carried by certain ‘Face’ threatening acts towards others.
‘Politeness Theory’ is based on the concept that interlocutors have ‘Face’ (i.e., self and public – image) which they consciously project; try to protect and to preserve. The theory holds that various politeness strategies are used to protect the ‘Face’ of others when addressing them.
This theory proposes that there is a positive and a negative ‘Face’. The former reflects the desire to be approved by others, while the latter avoids being imposed on. Therefore, the use of the proposed ‘Politeness Strategies’ differ according to ‘Face’.
The Notion of Politeness
The Last three decades witnessed a particular interest in the notion and the nature of ‘Politeness’. The study of ‘Politeness’ involves various domains, namely, Pragmatics, Stylistics, Sociolinguistics, Conversational Analysis, and Ethnography of Communication.
The definition, borderline and conceptualization of the notion of ‘politeness’ is still controversial. Some believe that ‘Politeness’ falls within the domain of Pragmatics, while others regard it as a Sociolinguistic phenomenon
Definitions
The expression of the speakers’ intention to mitigate face threats carried by certain face threatening acts toward another (Mills, 2003, p. 6).
A battery of social skills whose goal is to ensure everyone feels affirmed in a social interaction (Foley, William. 1997).
Lakoff (1975, p. 64) defines politeness as a notion developed by societies in order to reduce friction in personal communication.
Leech (2014) views it as a strategic conflict avoidance that can be measured in terms of the degree of effort put into the avoidance of a conflict situation. Generally, as mentioned by Yule (2010) Politeness, in an interaction, can then be defined as the means employed to show awareness of another person’s face. Thomas (1995: 150) defines ‘Politeness’ as “a genuine desire to be pleasant to others, or as the underlying motivation for an individual’s linguistic behavior,” adding that there is no access to addresser’s motivation to be more or less polite than others, stating that there is access only to what addressers actually say and how their addressee(s) react.
‘Politeness’ to Holmes depends on the level of the social relationship between the interlocutors, which determines the level of formality used in the interlocution. Fairclough (1989: 66) is in line with Holmes (ibid), stating that “politeness is based on the recognition of differences of power, degree of social distance,” proposing that the scale of ‘Politeness’ in any community depends on two factors: (1) An assessment of the social relationship between interlocutors (2) Knowledge of the social values and norms of the socio – cultural community involved.
For instance, one cannot use an imperative sentence, e.g, example (no.1) below: when addressing someone superior in rank, social status, or older in age. Using such utterances is likely to be considered impolite in any community
Example (1) Be quiet.
Politeness in Various Disciplines
Politeness is linked to some disciplines, which are distinct, yet complementary to each other. For instance, Leech (1996: 108) argues that ‘Politeness’ should be viewed and linked to the surface level of the utterance, which means that he observes it as not related to the utterance outside its context of use. Of a similar view are Hatim and Mason (1997: 79) who argue that ‘politeness’ is an important phenomenon in the study of interpersonal pragmatics and meaning. Thomas (1995: 158) states that ‘politeness’ is used to create social balance in the social interaction, drawing a comparison between politeness and ‘Deference’, (ibid: 149-150). She observes that the notion of ‘Politeness’ involves the concept of ‘Deference’, stating that although interrelated, are still two distinct phenomena, since the latter is the opposite of familiarity. She differentiates between the two phenomena, stating that ‘Deference’ “refers to the respect we show to other people by virtue of their higher status, greater age, etc. Politeness is more general matter of showing (or rather, of giving the appearance of showing) consideration to others. Both deference and politeness can be manifested through general social behavior”.
Hudson (1996: 128) argues that ‘Deference’ is related to the use of terms of address or to the use of singular / plural pronouns in some Languages.
Some Scholars relate ‘Politeness’ to the notion of ‘register’, e.g., Lyons (1979: 584) regards it as a variation according to social context, others relate it to the surface level of the utterance, e.g., Leech (1996: 108) argues that politeness is not related to the utterance outside its context of use; Thomas (1995: 158) observes that politeness creates a Social balance in the interaction, Cheepen (2000: 295) states that ‘Politeness’ is an interactionally motivated phenomenon, since it is not directly oriented towards a communicative goal, but rather maintains social equilibrium.
Face
Brown and Levinson (1987), subdivide ‘face’ into ‘Positive Face’ and ‘Negative Face’, (Brown into ‘Positive Face’ and ‘Negative Face’, (Brown and Levinson 1987: 62):
Negative face: the want of every ‘competent adult member’ that his/her actions be unimpeded by others.
Positive face: the want of every member that his/her wants be desirable to at least some others.
Face is an image of self-delineated in terms of approved social attributes– albeit an image that others may share, as when a person makes a good showing for his profession or religion by making a good showing for himself. (Goffman 1967: 5).
A person’s negative face is the need to be independent, to have freedom of action, and not to be imposed on by others.
A person’s positive face is the need to be accepted, even liked, by others, to be treated as a member of the same group, and to know that his or her wants are shared by others.
Positive face desires to be liked, admired, ratified, and related to positively (Brown1997).
Negative face wants not to be imposed upon (Brown 1997).
A positive politeness strategy leads the requester to appeal to common goal, and even friendship, via appeal to common goal, and via expressions such as:
How about letting me use your pen?
Hey, buddy, I’d appreciate it if you’d let me use your pen.
A negative politeness strategy—most typical form used is a question containing a modal verb such as: Could you lend me a pen?
Could you lend me a pen?
I am sorry to bother you, but can I ask for a pen or something?
Face saving acts
When the speaker says something that lessens the possible threat that comes from the interpretation of some action (Yule 1996: 61).
Negative-face saving acts
Lessens the threat to the need to be independent/have freedom of action/not be imposed on.
A negative politeness strategy: expresses deference (stressing the heare’s right to freedom)
E.g. an apology or sign of respect
A: Could you lend me your pen?
Leech’s (1983) Maxims of Politeness
Tact maxim
The tact maxim is minimizing cost to other and maximizing benefit to other. This maxim is applied in Searle’s speech act, commissives and directives called by Leech as impositives. Commissives is found in utterances that express speaker’s intention in the future action. Then, Directives/ impositives are expressions that influence the hearer to do action. The example of the tact maxim is as follows:
“Won‘t you sit down?”
“Could I interrupt you for half a second – what was the website address?”It is the directive/ impositive utterance. This utterance is spoken to ask the hearer sitting down. The speaker uses indirect utterance to be more polite and minimizing cost to the hearer. This utterance implies that sitting down is benefit to the hearer.
Generosity maxim
The generosity maxim states to minimizing benefit to self and maximizing cost to self. Like tact maxim, the generosity maxim occurs in commissives and directives/ impositives. Unlike the tact maxim, the maxim of generosity focuses on the speaker, and says that others should be put first instead of the self. This maxim is centered to self, while the tact maxim is to other. The example will be illustrated as follows:
You relax and let me do the dishes.
You must come and have dinner with us.
Approbation maxim
The approbation maxim requires to minimizing dispraise of other and maximizing praise of other. This maxim instructs to avoid saying unpleasant things about others and especially about the hearer. This maxim occurs in assertives/ representatives and expressives. Assertives/ representatives are utterances that express the true propositional. Meanwhile, expressive are utterances that show the speaker feeling. The example is sampled below.
A: “The performance was great!”
B: “Yes, wasn’t it!”
Minimize dispraise/maximize praise of the other person
Mary, you’re always so efficient – do you have copy of that web address?
Modesty maxim: In the modesty maxim, the participants must minimize praise of self and maximize dispraise of self. This maxim is applied in assertives/ representatives and expressives like the approbation maxim. Both the approbation maxim and the modesty maxim concern to the degree of good or bad evaluation of other or self that is uttered by the speaker. The approbation maxim is exampled by courtesy of congratulation. On other hand, the modesty maxim usually occurs in apologies. The sample of the modesty maxim is below.
“Please accept this small gift as prize of your achievement.”
“Oh, I’m so stupid – I didn’t make a note of our lecture! Did you?”
Maximize dispraise/minimize praise of yourself
Oh I’m so stupid – I didn’t make a not of that web address. Did you?
In this case, the utterance above is categorized as the modesty maxim because the speaker maximizes dispraise of himself. The speaker notices his utterance by using “small gift”
Agreement maxim
In the agreement maxim, there is tendency to maximize agreement between self and other people and minimize disagreement between self and other. The disagreement, in this maxim, usually is expressed by regret or partial agreement. ‘ It is in line with Brown and Levinson‘s positive politeness strategies of ‘seek agreement’ and ‘avoid disagreement,’ to which they attach great importance. However, it is not being claimed that people totally avoid disagreement. It is simply observed that they are much more direct in expressing agreement, rather than disagreement. This maxim occurs in assertives/ representatives illocutionary act. There example will be illustrated below.
A: “English is a difficult language to learn.”
B: “True, but the grammar is quite easy.”
Sympathy maxim
