(Im)Politeness Theories

Reporter: Francis G. Timbal

I. DELIMITING THE CONCEPT OF POLITENESS

A. Deference VS Politeness
.Deference the respect we show to other people
by virtue of their higher status, greater age, etc
(e.g. the use of honorifics and magic words)
.Politeness a more general matter of showing (or
rather, of giving the appearance of showing)
consideration to others.
.Politeness and deference, though related systems,
are distinct as it is possible to be deferential without
being polite.

B. Politeness VS Register
Register refers to systematic variation . . . in
relation to social context (Lyons, 1977) or the
way in which the language we speak or write
varies according to the type of situation
(Halliday, 1978)
The formality manifested in English by the choice
of formal lexis and forms of address, the
avoidance of interruption, etc. , has little to do
with politeness and little connection with
pragmatics.
We have no choice about whether or not to use
formal language in formal situations (unless we
are prepared to risk sanctions, such as social

C. Politeness as an utterance level VS Politeness as a pragmatic

phenomenon
Politeness as an utterance level
Doing pragmatics crucially requires context; there is no necessary
connection between the linguistic form and the perceived politeness
of a speech act.
Politeness cannot be assess reliably out of context; it is not the
linguistic form alone which renders the speech act polite or impolite,
but the linguistic form + the context of utterance + the
relationship between the speaker and the hearer.
Politeness as a pragmatic phenomenon
Politeness is a strategy (or series of strategies) employed by a speaker
to achieve a variety of goals, such as promoting or maintaining
harmonious relations (Thomas, 1995).
Politeness refers to the choices that are made in language use, the
linguistic expression that give people space and show a friendly
attitude to them (Cutting, 2002)

II. LEECHS POLITENESS PRINCIPLE AND

CONVERSATIONAL MAXIMS
Leech defines politeness as strategic conflict avoidance,
which can be measured in terms of the degree of effort put into
the avoidance of a conflict situation, and the establishment and
maintenance of comity.
A. Leechs (1980) Politeness Principle (PP)
Minimize (all things being equal) the expression of impolite
beliefs; maximize (all things being equal) the expression of
polite beliefs.
B. Leechs (1980) Conversational Maxims
. explain the relationship between sense and force in human
conversation
.statements of norms which the speakers can be observed to
follow
.all Leechs maxims need to be interpreted in the light of the

1. The Tact maxim

Minimize the expression of beliefs which imply cost to other; maximize

the expression of beliefs which imply benefit to other

A. Use minimizers to reduce the implied cost to the hearer

(consider the size of imposition):
Examples:
Hang on a second!
Ive got a bit of a problem.
B. Mitigate the effect of request by offering optionality

Western notion of politeness VS Chinese notion of Politeness

C. Cost benefit scale: if something is perceived as being to the
hearers benefit
Examples:
Have a chocolate!
Could I have one of your sandwiches?

2. The Generosity maxim

Minimize the expression of benefit to self; maximize

the expression of cost to self.

Minimize the expression of cost to other; maximize

the expression of benefit to other (Thomas, 1995)
Examples:
*You must come and have dinner with us.
* We must come and have dinner with you.

3. The Approbation maxim

Minimize the expression of beliefs which express

dispraise of other; maximize the expression of beliefs
which express approval of other.
Example:
Mark, youre very efficient and make notes of
everything you must have a copy of that website
address we were given today

4. The Modesty maxim

Minimize the expression of praise of self; maximize the

expression of dispraise of self
Example:
Oh, Im so stupid I didnt make a note of that
website address! Did you?

5. The Agreement maxim

Minimize the expression of disagreement between self and

other; maximize the expression of agreement between self and
other
Example:
A: . . . I dont want my daughter to do CSE. I want her to do O
level.
B: Yes, but Mr. Sharma, I thought we resolved this on your last
visit.
6. The Sympathy maxim

Minimize antipathy between self and other; maximize

sympathy between self and other.
This includes such polite speech acts as congratulate,
commiserate and express condolences.

III. BROWN AND LEVINSONS THEORY OF POLITENESS

Brown and Levinson view politeness as a complex system
for softening face threatening acts.
A. Brown and Levinsons notion of face
. Face the public self image that each of us wishes to claim
for ourselves
. Positive face needs refer to the need to be accepted, liked,
approved of, respected and appreciated by others, to be
treated as a member of a group, and to know ones want are
shared by others; these correspond to the desire for
closeness/connectedness.
. Negative face needs refer to the need to be independent, to
have freedom of action, and not to be imposed on by others;
these correspond to the desire for independence.

B. The notion of face threating acts (FTAs)

Face threatening acts (FTAs) refer to a
communicative acts performed by the speaker that
does not respect either the hearers need for
space (negative face) or their desire for their self
image to be upheld (positive face) or both.
Superstrategies for performing FTAs
Consider the context:
You are in a resource center trying to find a
particular website, but since you are having no
luck, you would like one of your fellow
students to help you (Cutting, 2002).

A. Dont do the FTA - say nothing at all;

communication can be achieved by gestures
like pointing a finger or nodding your head

[If you want to avoid an FTA, you can just

say nothing at all. You can just show to
those around you that you are having
difficulty, by sighing loudly and shaking your
head, and maybe someone will notice and
ask if you need help.]

B. Do the FTA say something

B. Do the FTA say something

1. Go off record requires the speaker to use
strategies such as metaphor, irony, rhetorical
questions, understatements or hints; includes
flouting the maxims and use of indirectness
[You ask help indirectly and say, in a voice
loud enough for your neighbors to hear,
something like, I wonder where on earth the
website is. I wish I could remember the
address. ]
2. Go on record requires the speaker to make a
strategic choice either to perform the FTA with or
without redress

2. Go on record requires the speaker to make a

strategic choice either to perform the FTA with or
without redress

i. Without redress (bald FTA) go on record

without downtoning or mitigating their utterance
(e.g. direct speech acts)
[You could turn to your neighbor and say, Mark,
tell me the address for that website they were
talking about this morning, and then he has to
tell, unless he wants to be rude or actually does
not know the address.]

ii. With redress (Redress action a speaker takes by

modifying their utterance in some way in order to take
the hearers face into account; this involves the use of
mitigation) face - management

ii. With redress (Redress action a speaker takes by modifying their

utterance in some way in order to take the hearers face into account;
this involves the use of mitigation) face - management

Positive politeness strategies aim to save the positive face, by

demonstrating closeness and solidarity, appealing to friendship,
making other people feel good, expressing reciprocity and
emphasizing that both speakers have a common goal

[Asking about the website, in the resource center, with on

record positive politeness would mean emphasizing the
strengthening of friendship and closeness: Marky, youre
computer whiz kid Id really appreciate it if youd tell me the
address for the website they were talking about this morning.]
Negative politeness strategies pay attention to negative face, by
demonstrating the distance between interlocutors, and avoiding
intruding on each others territory; speakers use them to avoid
imposing or presuming, and to give hearer options.

[In the resource center, you could have asked help with the
website by saying to Mark, I dont want to be nuisance, but
could you possibly tell me the address for that website they

C. Politeness and the notion of social variables

Social distance dependent on socio cultural
factors such as age, gender, role, education, class
ethnicity and so forth, all of which contribute towards
establishing a degree of familiarity between speaker
and hearer
. The higher the familiarity, the lower the level of
politeness strategies used.
Power difference similarly dependent on socio
cultural features and these determine who has the
dominant role in the conversation: the less dominant
the role, the higher the level of politeness to be used
Cultural ranking dependent on a culture bound
evaluation of polite language use
- This is calculated according to how threatening a
particular speech act is perceived to be within a specific

IV. WATTSS (2003) THEORY OF POLITENESS

A. Politeness (1) VS Politeness (2)
.Politeness (1) refers to folk, lay or
commonsense interpretations of politeness;
inherently evaluative and differ from one culture
to another, one group of speakers to another and
even at the level of individual speaker to
individual speaker (individual interpretation of
politeness)

.Politeness (2) concerned with politeness as a

technical term used in both the pragmatic and
sociolinguistic study of spoken and written
language, such as in Brown and Levinsons model
(theoretical interpretation)

B. Politic behavior versus polite behavior

Politic behavior the behavior, linguistic and
non linguistic, which the participants construct as
being appropriate to the on going social
interaction
- This can be equated with appropriate social
behavior (Meier, 1995)

Polite behavior refers to a marked version of

politic behavior in that the use of linguistic
structures exceed a level of linguistic behavior that
is expected in the context, thereby leaving them
open to interpretation by the participants as polite.
- In order to determine which linguistic expressions
can be classified as polite, Watts claims that the
researcher needs to carry out fine grained,

V. CULPEPERS NOTION OF IMPOLITENESS

Culpeper (1996) proposed a comprehensive impoliteness
framework which is parallel but opposite to Brown and
Levinsons theory of politeness aimed at examining the
communication of offence.
Impoliteness characterized by an intentional and
purposeful attack on a hearers face (intentional and
strategic politeness)

In order for impoliteness to be successful, the intention

of the speaker to offend must be understood by the
hearer. It is intention that is the key difference between
politeness and impoliteness, whether it is the speakers
intention to support face (politeness) or attack face
(impoliteness).

There
are
situations
where
speakers
can
be

Two different types of impoliteness

1. Mock impoliteness occurs when impoliteness
remains on the surface, since it is understood that it
is not intended to cause offence
2. Inherent or genuine impoliteness occurs when
an act (such as a request) cannot be completely
mitigated either by a politeness strategy or the context
or a combination of the two (e.g. Do you think you
could possibly not pick your nose?)
In parallel with Brown and Levinson, Culpeper (1996)
developed five impoliteness strategies: bald on record
impoliteness,
positive
impoliteness,
negative
impoliteness, off record impoliteness (includes sarcasm)
and withhold politeness. He also developed a
corresponding range of positive and negative