1

Module: Pragmatics
Professor: Abdennour Kharraki
MA Programme: 2020

Politeness Theory

Background

In this chapter, we deal with one of the important theories in pragmatics, Politeness Theory.
We will define the concept introducing three striking contributions in the field.

1. Defining Linguistic Politeness

Politeness in speech has been defined in different ways by a number of linguists. Gumperz
(1987), for example, considers it as ‘basic to the production of social order and a pre-
condition of human cooperation’. Another view proposes that people are polite so as ‘to
reduce friction in personal interaction’ (Lakoff, 1975). Mey (1993: 74), on the other hand,
defines politeness ‘as a strategy for cooperation with least cost and maximum benefit to all
interlocutors’. But, a more elaborate definition is put forward by Brown and Levinson
(1978/1987) in their seminal book Politeness: Some Universals in Language Usage. They
defined linguistic politeness in terms of some strategies that could either be free from face
threatening acts or loaded with face threats as we are going to expound later.

2. Lakoff’s Definition of Politeness

Robin Lakoff suggested three rules an individual follows so as to behave politely which are
explained as follows:

2.1. Rule 1: Don’t impose

According to this rule of politeness, the speaker should avoid to impose on the addressee to do
something he dislikes. The relation is formal and distant. There is no room for emotion in this
rule as there is much social distance between the interlocutors. We may think of a formal
relation like student/professor. A student may ask his professor for a meeting in this way:
‘Does it bother you if I see you next week to discuss my MA dissertation.

2.2. Rule 2: Offer Options

Usually, offering options is giving one’s addressee the chance or the freedom to think for
himself and therefore securely interpret the speaker’s intention as the utterances below
demonstrates:
 2

1- ‘You may wish and change this paragraph’.

2- ‘Does it bother you at all if you change this paragraph?’, instead of saying
3- ‘Change this paragraph!’
In some cultures and situations, this is not relevant, especially in the Moroccan context
when a person is invited using an offer options rule.

2.3. Rule 3: Encourage Feelings of Camaraderie

This is a friendly or intimate politeness rule. Formal language is hardly used. For example,
- A: ‘I think I did not express myself well’.
- B: ‘No! On the contrary, you were very eloquent’.

3. Leech’s Definition of Politeness

Leech (1983) identified in terms of a set of politeness maxims which are similar, to a larger
extent, to those suggested by Grice (1975). We look at the most interesting ones.

3.1 The Tact Maxim

The tact maxim is minimizing cost to other and maximizing benefit to other. It can be realized
in three ways. First, when you issue a request, for example, you use minimizers to reduce the
‘cost to other’: e.g., ‘Come on! He is just joking with you, he did not mean to hurt you.’
Second, when you issue a request, you can sometimes, offer options: e.g., ‘Could we meet at
home or in a café?’. Third, we normally use indirectness in requests to maximize benefit to
other (e.g., ‘I wonder if you could bring me some cakes.’), but sometimes, we do not need to
if the request is inherently to the benefit of the other: e.g., ‘Have some cakes!’

3.2 The Generosity Maxim

This maxim aims at minimizing the expression of benefit to self; and maximizing the
expression of cost to self’. For example, you could use expressions like: ‘help yourself!’.
Direct request in invitation in Morocco is the norm; or else, your invitation seems insincere.

3.3 The Approbation Maxim

The approbation maxim requires to minimizing dispraise of other and maximizing praise of
other. This maxim requires avoidance to say unpleasant things about others. Tea offered in
Iraq, for example, should be drunk fully; or else, your behavior is understood as rough.

3.4 The Modesty Maxim

Minimize the expression of praise of self; minimize the expression of dispraise of self. To
appear modest, some cultures denigrate themselves.
 3

3.5 The Agreement Maxim

This maxim states: ‘Minimize the expression of disagreement between self and other;
maximize the expression of agreement between self and other’. You can disagree with others,
using soft expressions like : You can consider that, but; your idea is fine, but there also …

4. Brown and Levinson’s Definition of Politeness

This is a more reliable contribution to politeness theory, in that it aims at developing a
universal cross-cultural model capable of accounting for any instance of politeness. The
concept of face played a crucial role in the structure of this model. I describe this theory in the
following diagram:

Figure 1: Possible Strategies for Doing FTAs