politeness in pragmatics - a knol by ikram

Contents

1.0 INTRODUCTION2.0 DEFINING POLITENESS3.0 TYPES OF POLITENESS4.0. FACE AND POLITENESS5.0 POLITENESS STRATEGIES6.0. CULTURAL DIFFERENCES REGARDING POLITENESS7.0 CONCLUSIONREFERENCES

more

The study of language or linguistics consists of a number of disciplines. Semantics and pragmatics are two

major ones. Semantics is the study of linguistic meaning (Malmkjaer, 2002). Pragmatics studies the

relationship between natural language expressions and their uses in specific situations (Bussman, 2006). It

focuses on the users and the context of language use rather than on bare textual meaning, reference, or

grammar (Korta & Perry, 2009). It seeks to explain aspects of meaning which cannot be found in the plain

sense of words or structures, as explained by semantics (Moore, 2001). From the definitions above we can

note that the main differences between the two fields are as follows: Semantics deals with truth conditional

aspects while pragmatics deals with non-truth conditional aspects; Semantics deals with context-independent

aspects of meaning whereas pragmatics deals with aspects where context must be taken into account;

semantics deals with conventional aspects of meaning and

pragmatics deals with aspects of meaning that are not looked up in

the dictionary but are ‘worked out’ on particular occasions of use

and, finally, semantics is concerned with the description of meaning

Politeness in Pragmatics - a knol by Ikram http://knol.google.com/k/ikram/politeness-in-pragmatics/1ixgc7f8pjfg1/4#

1 of 12 3/10/2012 7:26 AM

while pragmatics deals with the uses made of those meanings

(Cruse, 2006). An example will help highlight these differences.

When during the football match my colleague sitting on the bench

shouts ‘man on!’, semantics cannot grasp the message (the meaning

in context) that he wants to convey to me. Semantics can only elicit

different lexical meanings of the noun ‘man' and the preposition

‘on’. Pragmatics will be able to bring out the meaning in context which is the fact that my colleague is

warning me that I am just about to get tackled from the back by a player I cannot see. He wishes me to evade

the challenge and save the ball (Moore, 2001).

Similarly, the sentence ‘Sherlock saw the man with binoculars’ could mean that Sherlock observed the man

by using binoculars; or that Sherlock observed a man who was holding binoculars. The meaning of the

sentence depends on an understanding of the context and the speaker's intent. It is pragmatics that helps us

gain that understanding (“Pragmatics”, 2009). An important topic in pragmatics is politeness, which is the

object of study in this paper.

Etymologically, the term ‘polite is derived from the word ‘politus’ which is a past participle of the Latin verb

‘polire’. ‘Politus’ means ‘polished or ‘smoothed’. Consequently, the term ‘politeness’ came to refer to correct

social behavior, courtly manners, the right etiquettes and consideration for others during the social interaction

(Felix-Brasdefer, 2007).

In pragmatics ‘politeness’ refers to “linguistic expression of courtesy and social position.” It is an appropriate

usage of language in such a way that embarrassing or offending anyone is avoided (Trask, 2007). When we

are in the private circle of our family and friends we are relaxed and informal in our way of speaking.

We can order our little brothers “Go get me that plate!", or we may say "Shut up!" to friends who are talking

loudly in the cinema during the movie. However, when we socialize with other people and when we are at

formal functions, we use different, formal and courteous kind of language meant to show our respect for the

people we are talking to. With them we say things like “Could you please pass me that plate?” and “I am

sorry, I didn’t mean to interrupt your conversation but I am not able to hear the show”. That is why linguists


2 of 12 3/10/2012 7:26 AM

and anthropologists concluded that the specific ways in which speakers

perform speech acts, such as requests, commands, elicitations and offers,

express and reflect the nature of the relationship between them (Trask,

2007).

The notion of politeness has been approached from two angles: first-order politeness (or politeness1) as

perceived by members of different socio-cultural groups, and second-order politeness1.

First-order politeness refers to the common notion of the term; the way politeness manifests itself in

linguistic interaction. Politeness1 consists of three types of politeness:

a) Expressive politeness1 which is politeness reflected in the speaker’s polite intentions. This may be realized

by using special terms of address, honorable titles, conventional expressions, such as ‘please , excuse me, and

‘thank you’, phrases and expressions used to reduce affects of refusal or the use of the conditional to express

politeness in situationally-appropriate contexts.

b) Classificatory politeness1 which refers to politeness as a

categorical tool: it is about the hearer's judgments regarding other

people's polite or impolite behavior.

c) Metapragmatic politeness1 that refers to how people talk about

politeness as a concept and what they perceive as polite or impolite in

different interactional practices (Felix-Brasdefer, 2007).

Politeness2 refers to the scientific conceptualization of politeness1

and as a theory of the universal principles governing human interaction. It helps us envision how politeness1

works in social interaction, what its function is in society, how polite behavior is distinguished from impolite


3 of 12 3/10/2012 7:26 AM

behavior and what are the characteristics of each (Felix-Brasdefer, 2007).

The concept of face is central to politeness theory. The term ‘face’ in politeness theory does not refer to our

body part but it refers to the respect that an individual has for him or herself, and maintaining that "self-

esteem" in public or in private situations (Bussman, 2006). Face is the public self-image that every adult

member of a society wants to protect and preserve (Malmkjaer, 2002). As we have already said, the aim of

politeness in language is to show regard and respect for the listener-or in other words-to save his or her face.

‘Positive face’ according to Brown and Levinson is "the want of every member that his wants be desirable to

at least some others" and “the positive consistent self-image or 'personality' (crucially including the desire

that this self-image be appreciated and approved of) claimed by interactants” (Brown & Levinson, 1987).

This means that positive face is our want and need to be accepted, respected and approved by others.

‘Negative face’ is defined as "the want of every 'competent adult member' (of a society) that his actions be

unimpeded by others", or "the basic claim to territories, personal preserves, rights to non-distraction-i.e. the

freedom of action and freedom from imposition” (Brown & Levinson, 1987). Negative face is our want and

need to be free; not be constrained and ordered around.

Other authors have used different terms to refer to these two complimentary sides or types of face. They are

terms such as ‘distance and involvement’, ‘deference and solidarity’, ‘autonomy and connection’, ‘personal

and impersonal face’ (Yanagiya, n.d.).

Face threatening acts are speech acts that threaten to damage the face of the person addressed or the speaker

by acting in opposition to the wants and desires of the other. They are “acts that infringe on the hearers' need

to maintain his/her self-esteem, and be respected” (Moore, 2001). Most of these acts are verbal, but they can

also be in the non-verbal forms of communication such as tone or inflections. With each utterance there must

be at least one face threatening act. Sometimes a single utterance contains more than one of such acts (Brown

& Levinson, 1987). There are two types of face threatening acts; negative face threatening acts and positive


4 of 12 3/10/2012 7:26 AM

face threatening acts.

Negative face threatening acts threaten the negative face by impeding the freedom of choice and action. It

involves a submission of one will to the other (Brown & Levinson, 1987). Ordering someone to do something

is threatening to that person’s negative face. Positive face threatening acts threaten the positive face. They can

be damaging both to the speaker and hearer. Positive face is threatened when the speaker or addressee does

not care about his/her confessant’s feeling, wants and needs or when they want different things. When

someone is separated, given less importance or is treated with less respect than others, then his or her positive

face is threatened (Brown & Levinson, 1987).

As for face saving acts, they are linguistic devices that the speaker uses in

order to save the hearer’s face. They are things such as indirectness,

formality, emphasis of social distance, excuses, conditions, avoiding first

and second personal pronouns, generic expressions, indefinite expressions,

using the second plural pronoun to address the single hearer, etc (Yanagiya,

n.d.) .

When wanting to classify or categorize the treatment of face in politeness, few categories impose themselves.

a) Face-Only View: Here face is seen as a public image that everyone wants to claim for himself.

Accordingly, politeness is seen as a way to protect, maintain or enhance the face (Brown & Levinson, 1987).

b) Face and Place: In this view face is regarded more like a public than personal property.

Face is a loan from society, an outcome of interaction that is negotiable. Here there is a further classificationinto two subcategories: (1) Face embracing place view formulated by Mao. According to him “the notion of

face embraces the relative placement of individuals on social hierarchies. In this view the focus is not on

accommodation of individual ‘wants and desires but on the concordance of individual conduct with the views

and judgments of a community". (Yanagiya, n.d) (2) Weak place before face view which has been formulated

by Japanese. It accepts the notions of positive and negative face but introduces a new notion known as

discernment (‘wakimae’) which is polite behavior according to social conventions both verbally and non

verbally. To use or observe ‘wakimae’ in language is an “integral part of linguistic politeness” (Yanagiya,


5 of 12 3/10/2012 7:26 AM

n.d).

c) Place Only View regards face without any role in the politeness

phenomenon. Negative face is totally rejected because in some

cultures, such as in Japan, what is of great importance is not

individuals' claims to freedom of action but interpersonal

relationships and person’s position in relation to other members of

the society (Yanagiya, n.d.).

Politeness strategies have been formulated by pragmatists in order to help us save the hearer’s face when

face-threatening acts are inevitable. A number of such strategies exist. What follows are the most important

and popular ones.

There are four types of politeness strategies, described by Brown and Levinson. They are:

a) Bold On-record Strategies: They are strategies that usually make no or little attempt to minimize the threat

to the hearer’s face (“Politeness Theory, 2009”). Examples include:

An emergency: Help!

Task oriented: Pass me the hammer.

Request: Put your jacket away.

Alerting: Turn your lights on! (while driving)

b) Positive Politeness Strategies seek to minimize the threat to the hearer’s positive face. These strategies are

supposed to make the hearer feel good about himself, his interests and possessions. They are used among

people who know each other fairly well (Moore, 2001).


6 of 12 3/10/2012 7:26 AM

c) Negative Politeness Strategies also recognize and want to save the hearer's face. But they also recognize

that you are in some way imposing on them. Examples are:

Being indirect: Would you know where Oxford

Street is?

Using hedges or questions: Perhaps, he might have

taken it, maybe. OR Could you please pass the

rice?

Being pessimistic: You couldn’t find your way to

lending me a thousand dollars, could you?

Minimizing the imposition: It’s not too much out of

your way, just a couple of blocks.

Apologizing: I’m sorry; it’s a lot to ask, but can

you lend me a thousand dollars?

Using plural pronouns: We regret to inform you…

(Brown & Levinson, 1987)

d) Off –record (Indirect) Strategies: They are strategies that make use of indirect language in order to

minimize the threat of imposing on the hearer. The main purpose is to take some of the pressure from the

speaker so that he does not seem imposing (“Politeness Theory, 2009). Examples are: Giving hints: It's a bit

cold in here.

Being vague: Perhaps, someone should have been more responsible.

Being sarcastic, or joking: Yeah, he's a real Einstein! (Moore, 2001)

Geoffrey Leech’s major contribution to the principle of politeness is his conversational maxims which teach

us about minimizing the face threatening acts and saving the hearer’s face. According to him there are six

such maxims: tact, generosity, approbation, modesty, agreement, and sympathy.


7 of 12 3/10/2012 7:26 AM

a) The Tact Maxim: Minimize the expression of beliefs which imply cost to the other; maximize the

expression of beliefs which imply benefit to the other. This corresponds to the Brown and Levinson’s

negative politeness strategy of minimizing the imposition and positive politeness strategy of attending to the

hearer’s interests, wants and needs.

b) The Generosity Maxim: Minimize the expression of benefit to self and maximize the expression of cost to

self. This principle shows that the speaker should put others first instead of self.

c) The Approbation Maxim: Minimize the expression of beliefs which express dispraise of other; maximize

the expression of beliefs which express approval of other’. This maxim teaches that it is good to praise

others; in case this is not possible then at least the speaker should sidestep the issue to avoid disagreement.

The maxim also teaches the importance of expressing solidarity with others.

d) The Modesty Maxim: Minimize the expression of praise of self; maximize the expression of dispraise of

self.

e) The Agreement Maxim: Minimize the expression of disagreement between self and other; maximize the

expression of agreement between self and other. This too is in accordance with Brown and Levinson’s

positive strategy of seeking agreement and avoiding disagreement.

f) The Sympathy Maxim: Minimize antipathy between self and other; maximize sympathy between self and

other. This is line with Brown and Levinson’s positive strategy of attending to the hearer’s interests

(“Politeness Maxims”, 2009).


8 of 12 3/10/2012 7:26 AM

Early writers on politeness such as Lakoff, Brown & Levinson, Leech and Fraser were right to claim that

politeness is a universal phenomenon; however they were wrong asserting that the principles of politeness are

universal too (Yanagiya, n.d.). The principles, rules and notions of politeness vary from culture to culture,

and from society to society; therefore it is very easy to offend when speaking to a speaker of a different

language (Trask 2007). Most of the differences are between western and eastern societies and cultures, such

as that of Japan for example. In Japan linguistic politeness does not arise out of concern for face but out of

‘discernment’ (wakimae); “the speaker’s use of polite expressions according to social convention”.

(Yanagiya, n.d.)

What is considered polite or at least acceptable in some places might be rude and impolite in others. For

example, in Madagascar it is considered impolite to answer questions directly and to make predictions that

might be wrong. Navaho Indians in USA consider it impolite to speak at all in the presence of higher

authority, or to give their names. Japanese and Javanese have complex systems for linguistic marking of

status and failing to do this marking appropriately is a grave offence (Trask, 2007). Because of the lack of the

word ‘please’ Norwegians thank profusely during requests, even in the situations and ways that may seem

odd and inappropriate to people of other culture (“Politeness in Europe-Book Review”, 2005).


9 of 12 3/10/2012 7:26 AM

One of the easily noticeable differences between the West and the East is that Eastern people, like Arabs for

example, truly love to have guests over and enjoy being polite and hospitable to them. In the west receiving

and entertaining guests is too often seen as an obligation (Van Tongorloo, 2002-2009; Al Shurafa, 2002).In

spite of differences, it is wrong to say that a particular language is more polite than others.

I have learned from my research that linguistic politeness is a universal phenomenon that varies from culture

to culture in principles, rules and notions of polite and impolite acts. All languages have devices that enable

the speakers to minimize the threat to the hearer's face; his or her public image, respect and self-esteem.

Studying those devices is the cornerstone of the theory of politeness.

Al-Shurafa, N.S.D. (2002). “Linguistic Patterns of Politeness Forms and Strategies in Palestinian Arabic: Functional-Pragmatic Analysis” J. King Saud University, Vol. 14 (1), pp. 3-23.

Brown, P. & Levinson, S.C. (1987). Politeness: Some Universals in Language Usage. Cambridge:Cambridge University Press.


10 of 12 3/10/2012 7:26 AM

Bussman, H. (2006). Routledge Dictionary of Language and Linguistics. Translated and edited byTrauth G.P & Kazzari, K.., Taylor & Francis e-Library.

Cruse, A. (2006). A Glossary of Semantics and Pragmatics, Edinburgh: Edinburgh University Press

· Felix-Brasdefer, C. (2007). “Politeness” Discourse Pragmatics, Retrieved from http://www.indiana.edu/~discprag/polite.html

Korta, K; Perry, John. "Pragmatics", The Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy (Fall 2009 Edition),Edward N. Zalta (ed.), Retrieved from http://plato.stanford.edu/archives/fall2009/entries/pragmatics/.

Malmkjaer, K. (ed.) (2002). The Linguistics Encyclopedia, 2nd ed. New York: Routledge.

Moore, A. (2001). “Pragmatics and Speech Acts; The Politeness Principle”, Retrieved fromhttp://www.teachit.co.uk/armoore/lang/pragmatics.htm#16

“Politeness in Europe-Book Review” (2005). Teachers College Columbia University Working Papers in Tesol and Applied Linguistics, Vol. 5(2).

“Politeness Maxims” (2009). Wikipedia, the Free Encyclopedia, Retrieved

from http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Politeness_maxims.

“Politeness Theory” (2009). Wikipedia, the Free Encyclopedia, Retrieved fromhttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Politeness_theory.

“Pragmatics”, (2009). Wikipedia, the Free Encyclopedia, Retrieved from http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pragmatics

Trask, R.L. (2007). Language and Linguistics, 2nd ed. New York: Routledge.

Van Tongorloo, E., (2002-2009). “Differences in Traditions of Hospitality and Politeness betweenCultures and Countries”, Helium, Retrieved from http://www.helium.com/items/73111-hospitality-and-politeness-between-cultures-and- countries

Yanagiya, K. (n.d). “Face, Place and Linguistic Politeness: A Reexamination of “Face-Work Phenomenon”, Retrieved from http://www.flet.keio.ac.jp/~colloq/articles/backnumb


11 of 12 3/10/2012 7:26 AM

/Col_20_YanagiyaKeiko.pdf

Ikram Hameedaddeen

207410117

Introduction to Linguistics 2 (ENG 233)

Prince Sultan University, College for Women

http://www.psu.edu.sa/pscw/

Comments

Sign in to write a comment


12 of 12 3/10/2012 7:26 AM

politeness in pragmatics - a knol by ikram

Documents