POLITENESS AND FACE

(from Making sense of discourse analysis, Brian Paltridge, 2002, pp. 46-54 and Pragmatics and
Discourse, Joan Cutting, 2002)
Some models of politeness:
Lakoff (1973) proposes 3 maxims of politeness. These are:
- Don't impose
- Give options
- Make your receiver feel good
For example, we apologise for imposing by saying ‘I'm sorry to bother you but…’. We also make
request in an elaborate fashion by saying ‘Would you mind if…’, ‘Could you possibly…’ or ‘Can I
ask you to…’ to give our hearer the option of refusal. Or we might praise someone to make
them feel good by saying ‘You're better at this than me…’.
The following example from Levinson's Pragmatics (1983) illustrates this. In this extract, A does
not impose, gives an option (by saying ‘If you’d care to come’) and attempts to make B feel
good by making them feel that the company is desirable. Equally, B attempts to make A feel
good by using hedges to delay the refusal and adding an ‘account’ to explain why the invitation
cannot be accepted.
A: If you’d care to come and visit a little while this morning, I'll give you a cup of coffee.
B: Hehh Well that's awfully sweet of you
I don't think I can make it this morning
Hh uhm I'm running an ad in the paper and-and uh I have to stay near the phone

The most influential work in the area of positive and negative face has been Brown and
Levinson’s book Politeness (1987). The table below summarises the positive and negative
politeness strategies Brown and Levinson suggest we use when interacting with people to
maintain each other's face.

POSITIVE POLITENESS STRATEGIES NEGATIVE POLITENESS STRATEGIES

(showing closeness, intimacy, rapport and solidarity) (giving the other person choices,
allowing them to maintain their
 freedom)
- Notice on attend to the other person's wants, needs, - Be indirect: by using indirect speech
or possessions acts, or do the act off-record
- Intensify your interests, approval, or sympathy for the - Don't presume or assume
other person - Be pessimistic about things: e.g. by
- Use in-group identity markers: e.g in-group address saying ‘This probably won't be
forms, jargons, slang, nicknames necessary but…’ or ‘You couldn't find
- Seek agreement with the other person: e.g choose your way to lend me some money,
topics you will both agree on could you?’

- Avoid disagreement with the other person: e.g. by - Minimise imposition on the other
hedging, telling white lies person: e.g. by saying ‘I just wanted to
ask/ wonder if you could…’ or adding ‘if
- Presuppose or assert common ground between each
possible’, …
other: e.g. through gossip, small talk
- Give deference: e.g. by the use of
- Joke about things
certain address forms
- Assert or presuppose knowledge of, or concern for,
- Apologise to the other person: e.g. by
the other person's wants
indicating reluctance or begging
- Make offers, promises
forgiveness
- Be optimistic about things
- State the imposition as a social rule or
- Include each other in an activity: e.g. by using ‘we’
obligation: e.g. by saying ‘Smoking is
rather than ‘you’ or ‘me’
not allowed here’ instead of ‘I want you
- Give gifts, express sympathy, understanding, or not to smoke in here’
cooperation to the other person
- Go on-record as incurring a debt: e.g.
E.g.: I know you hate parties, Jen, but come anyway. by saying ‘I’d be grateful if you….’
We’ll all be there, and it’ll be cool seeing if Ally is with
- Use pre-sequences:
Andrea. Come on – get a life!
A: You know that French film that’s on
(this example contains many solidarity strategies:
in the Odeon? (pre-sequence)
knowledge of personal information, nicknames, shared
B: Yes?
dialect and slang, and gossip. The inviter claims
A: Do you want to go and see it
common ground by including her in a common activity,
tonight?
intensifying the interest predicting that the party will
 be ‘cool’ and by using in-group identity markers B: Yeah, why not?
(nickname Jen) and young people’s in-group slang
(cool, get a life). The gossip about Ally and Andrea
asserts common ground (I know that you know about
them). The speaker here is optimistic that the hearer
will accept the invitation.)

Leech (1983) has also proposed a politeness principle which, like the cooperative principle, is
described as a set of maxims that, he argues, speakers assume others are following. These are:
- Maxim of tact: the level of cost – benefit of the act to the hearer
- Maxim of generosity: the level of cost – benefit of the act to the speaker
- Maxim of approbation: the level of praise – criticism of the hearer
- Maxim of modesty: the level of praise – criticism of the speaker
- Maxim of agreement: the level agreement – disagreement
- Maxim of sympathy: the level of sympathy - antipathy
(The first and second maxims form a pair, as do the third and fourth)
Leech argues that the first of these maxims, the maxim of tact, is the most important in English-
speaking communities. The maxim of tact focuses on the hearer and says ‘minimise cost to
other’ and ‘maximise benefit to other’. The first part of this maxim fits in with Brown and
Levinson’s negative politeness strategy of minimising the imposition and the second part
reflects the positive politeness strategy of attending to the hearer’s interests, wants and needs
‘Could I interrupt you for half a second – what was that website address?
(minimising cost by making things seem smaller and more trivial, such as using ’on your way’, ‘if
possible’, ‘for (half) a second’, ‘for a moment’, ‘Could I just borrow you 50p?’ (considering the
fact that the speaker is not likely to return 50p)
‘Would you like a bird table commemorating your contribution to this historic bridge?’
(maximising benefit to hearer)
His second maxim, the maxim of generosity, is the flip-side of the tact maxim, since it focuses
on the speaker and says ‘minimise benefit to self’ and ‘maximise cost to self’.
‘You relax and let me do the dishes.’
The maxim of approbation suggests we typically minimise criticism of others while at the same
time maximising our praise of them. The first part of the maxim is somewhat similar to the
politeness strategy of avoiding disagreement. The second part fits in with the politeness
positive politeness strategy of making other people feel good by showing solidarity.
‘You're very efficient and make notes of everything - you must have a copy of that website
address we were given today.’ (praising the hearer)
‘I heard you singing at the karaoke last night. It was, um … different.’ (minimising criticism of
hearer)
It’s OK. Everyone makes mistakes / It could have been worse. (Minimising criticism of hearer)
The maxim of modesty says we should minimise praise of ourselves and maximise criticising
ourselves.
Oh I'm so stupid/ It’s all my fault/ That’s so silly of me. I didn't make a note of that website
address. Did you?
I tried my best/ I couldn’t have done it without …. (As response to a compliment of “Well done”)
Modesty is possibly a more complex maxim than the others since the maxim of quality can
sometimes be violated in observing it. Cutting found that in conferences members of the
audience preface their questions to the speaker with self-deprecating expressions such as:
‘There is an idiot question I want to ask you …’
‘I don't know much about this area, but I think that …’
The last two maxims do not form a pair. The maxim of agreement says ‘maximise agreement
between self and other’ and ‘minimise disagreement between self and other’. It is in line with
Brown and Levinson's positive politeness strategies of ‘seek agreement’ and ‘avoid
disagreement’.
Maximising agreement: I totally agree with you. I couldn’t agree more.
Minimising disagreement by showing partial disagreement: You have a point there, but …
A: Don’t wash them and put them on the rack.
B: But all …
A: Get the dryer, dry them, do the tops, and then it’s all done.
B: Yes – yes, but if you do that, your – your – your tea-towel’s soaking, and at the end of the
night, nothing’s getting dried.
The maxim of sympathy says ‘minimise antipathy between self and other’ and ‘maximise
sympathy between self and other’. It includes such polite speech acts as congratulate,
commiserate and express condolences, as in ‘I was sorry to hear about your father’. Note that
the speaker does not say I was sorry to hear about your father's death. Speakers often soften
the distress and embarrassment with euphemism.
Overlaps and gaps
There is considerable overlap between the categories of Brown and Levinson's model and the
category of Leech’s model. There is also overlap within both Brown and Levinson's model and
Leech’s: the categories themselves are not mutually exclusive.
One utterance can contain both positive and negative politeness periods. The speaker in the
following example mixes the two quite successfully: ‘Could you be u pal and give me a lift
home? Don't bother if you're not going my way.’
One utterance can obey two or more maxims. In the following the speaker observes both tact
and generosity: ‘Have as many cakes as you want.’
Another criticism is that a new maxim could be added for every new situation that occurs.
There should also possibly be the a patience maxim which says ‘minimise the urgency for other’
and ‘maximise the lack of urgency for other’.
E.g. Could I take a quick look at your paper? No hurry - whenever you're finished with it.
There may be endless gaps not covered by the maxims; no model can describe all human
interactions.
Politeness and context
* Form and function:
Politeness lies not in the form and the words themselves, but in their function and intended
social meaning. In the following, the form is polite but the intention is not:
Do me a favour – piss off.
So if you’d be as kind as to shut up, I’d appreciate it.
* Situational context
Two situational context factors that influence the way we make a request:
- The degree of imposition, the routines and reasonableness of the task: the greater the
imposition, the more indirect the language is. (E.g.: Give me 5 cents vs. I couldn’t borrow
$30, could I, if you don’t need it right now?)
- The formality of the context: the greater the formality, the more indirect the language
is. (E.g.: Hang on – I haven’t finished (in informal setting) vs. I wonder if I might just
finish what I’m trying to say (in formal setting).
* Social context
- Social distance (degree of formality): when there is less social distance, there is less
negative politeness and indirectness
- Power relation (differences of status, roles, age, class, ..): those of lower status, with less
dominant role, … use more indirectness and more negative politeness features than those
with higher status and so on.
* Cultural context
- The whole issue of politeness and language is culture-bound. The use of indirectness can
hardly be understood without the cross-cultural perspective.
- In some cultures, a lecturer making suggestions to a student would do so directly, bald on
record because of their status. But British lecturers often use indirect suggestions, negative
politeness hedges and mitigation “I think this part of your essay could possibly come a little
bit nearer the beginning, if you like”.
- The British put more emphasis on negative politeness than other cultures.
- Chinese hosts choose a guest’s menu for them and put pieces of food on their plate à
‘maximise benefit to other’ overrides the ‘don’t impose’ and ‘give other options’ maxim.
- In some Western cultures, refusals demand a specific excuse, whereas in other cultures,
this is not necessary.
- British lecturers may give positive feedback and praise students as an acceptable teaching
technique, but Chinese students may feel that their face is threatened by being praised in
front of everyone.
- British lecturers are not used to being praised by their students, whereas for the Chinese,
this is a standard politeness routine.