Politeness, Tact and Related Social Principles of Linguistic

Behavior

Raed Dakhil Kareem PhD Candidate, University of

Baghdad, College of Arts, Dept. of English

1-Definition of Politeness

Politeness is showing awareness of another person's public self-image (Yule,1996b: 135ff.). According to Brown and Levinson (1978: 56ff.) politeness is basic to the production of social order and a precondition of human cooperation; therefore, to understand this phenomenon, the theory underlying it should match with the foundation of human social life.

Since politeness deals with human interaction, there must be some universal principles. An example is the fact that there is no one who likes to be treated impolitely. Furthermore, the way of expressing politeness can be in the forms of linguistic or non-linguistic behaviors.

This universality applies to any society in the world, regardless of the degree of its isolation or distance, or the complexity of its social and economic life. However, what is considered polite or impolite might be very much different from a culture to another culture, from a group to another group, from a situation to another or even from a person to another. One expression, for example, may be regarded as polite for a certain group of society and impolite for another group. It really depends on the sociocultural elements of the society.

Green (1996: 148ff.) makes a distinction between polite behavior and rude behavior. Polite behavior makes people feel comfortable, whereas rude behavior makes people feel uncomfortable. Therefore, to avoid making other people uncomfortable, or to show good regards to them in order to make them comfortable, politeness is one choice. Politeness covers any kinds of interpersonal behavior, including linguistic and nonlinguistic behaviors. Yule (1996a: 60ff.) argues that politeness could be treated as a fixed concept, that is; as in the idea of ''polite social behavior'' or etiquette within one particular culture.

However, possible specifications for being polite in social interaction within a particular culture can occur. The underlying assumption of this possibility is that people in one interactional situation are generally aware that such norms (politeness and rudeness) and principles do exist in society at a large extent. Nevertheless, how to act politely in one situation, such as at work, at dining table is more specific and may be different from one to another society. In short, politeness and its universal principles are possessed by a particular society. All members of the society need to be treated politely.

The differences lie in the ways of expressing polite linguistic or non-linguistic behaviors. In this case, there are some strategies of politeness that may share universal characteristics across culture.

2- Strategies of Politeness Politeness is necessary for a society because it shows a relationship between individuals; it shows respects and cultural norms. Since people interact all the time in the society, they need to maintain relationship, to maintain face and to be able to communicate to people and to the common world of interaction.

2.1. Brown and Levinson (1978)

The famous work concerning strategies of politeness is that of Brown and Levinson (1978). Brown and Levinson (1978: 56ff.) have explored very broadly the universality of the concept of politeness, which come from the cultural notion of "face".

Face consists of two specific kinds of "wants" ,i.e., the wants or the needs not to be impeded in one's actions which is called negative face, and the wants or the needs to be approved or to be connected to a group, which is called positive face.

Brown and Levinson claim that this notion of face is universal.

Their observation reveals that when making a small request one will tend to use language that stress in-group membership and social similarity, and when making a bigger request, one will use the more formal language and more formal politeness strategies, such as using indirect speech, apologies and hedges.

This strategy is claimed to be related to participant's face, which is the core element in the notion of politeness.

Given the assumption of the universality of face, Brown and Levinson claim that certain kinds of acts can threaten face; the acts that go contrary to what the face needs from the speaker. This is called "face threatening act" (FTA). FTA is an utterance or action that threatens a person's public self-image (face).

Some acts can threaten the hearer's negative face and some others can threaten the positive face of the hearer. Some acts threaten the speaker's face.

These two distinctions of FTA lead to consider doing the FTA or not doing the FTA.

The strategies of doing the FTA depend mainly on the circumstance or situation of whether or not the speaker wants to preserve the hearer's face to any degree.

The possible sets of strategies that Brown and Levinson propose in relation to doing FTAs can be seen in the following chart:

Based on the chart above, there are five possible strategic choices concerning with FTAs. However, how to choose one of those five strategies depends on the conditions of both the speaker and hearer.According to Brown and Levinson there are three sociological factors which are important to determine the choice of strategies of politeness in many cultures. These variables involve:

(1) the social distance of the speaker and the hearer, i.e.; how close the relationship between speaker and hearer;

(2) the relative power of the speaker and the hearer; and(3) the absolute ranking of imposition in the particular culture; what is permissible in one culture may not be permissible in another culture. Brown and Levinson claim that the weight of an FTA is a simple sum of these three factors.

On the basis of this calculation, a speaker decides whether or not he likes to perform one of the following strategies:

1. Baldly On Record without Redressive Action

In this strategy the speakers do the FTA in the most direct, clear and unambiguous way because they believe that that there are occasions when some constraints force people to speak very directly when, for instance, there is an emergency or a major time constraint in which the speaker saves time in order to be effective. This strategy will also be achieved if the speaker does not fear retribution from the hearer. That is, where the danger to the hearer's face is very small or where the speaker has superior power over the hearer such as between a Commander and one of his soldiers.

2. Positive Politeness Strategy

Positive politeness is an appeal to solidarity towards others. It is how to make the hearer feel good or to make him feel that his values are shared. Positive politeness utterances are used to achieve intimacy, to imply common ground or to share wants. By using positive politeness strategy, one can show that the speaker wants to come closer to the hearer. There are three major strategies proposed by Brown and Levinson in this category:

First is that the speaker claims common ground with the hearer by indicating that both can share specific wants, including goals and values.Second is that both the speaker and the hearer are cooperatively involved in the relevant activity. Thus they can share goals in some ways.The last is that the speaker should fulfill the hearer's want in order to indicate that he (speaker) wants the hearer's wants and needs to some particular extent such as giving gifts to the hearer, understanding or sympathy

3. Negative Politeness Strategy

Negative politeness strategy refers to an attempt to demonstrate an awareness of not to be imposed on: to avoid interfering in or interrupting the interlocutor's freedom of action by using hedge, apology, etc.Brown and Levinson consider this strategy the heart of respect behavior because it performs the function of minimizing the imposition over the hearer. There are five major strategies concerning with this negative politeness according to Brown and Levinson:

(a)Be direct;

(b)Don't presume/ assume;

(c)Don't coerce the hearer;

(d)Communicate the speaker's want to not impinge on the hearer; and

(e)Redress other wants of the hearer's derivative from negative face.

In negative politeness strategies, conventional politeness markers and deference markers are used to minimize the imposition .

4. Off Record Politeness StrategyGenerally, off record politeness strategy is the use of utterances that are not directly addressed to the other. In this strategy, the speaker performs the FTA by implication, i.e.; by saying something indirectly. Some of the possible strategies Brown and Levinson suggest to include here are "give hints," "use metaphor," and "be vague or ambiguous."5. Do not do FTANot doing FTA is the last strategic choice. By not doing FTA, no one would be enforced or threatened.

2.2. Lakoff' Strategies (1973)

Brown and Levinson are not the only scholars who are interested in the issue of politeness strategies.

Robin Lakoff (1973: 292-305) describes three different rules a speaker may follow in order to be polite. They range from the most formal to the informal ones.

Lakoff and Brown and Levinson's strategies, although they are different in names, are correspondent to each other(Fraser, 1990: 223ff.).

1. The most formal rule of politeness according to Lakoff is "Don't impose“

This rule relates to the three sociological variables that Brown and Levinson propose, in that there is an acknowledged difference in power and status between a speaker and a hearer that allows the speaker to act more politely to the hearer. According to this rule, a speaker is to be polite if he avoids or asks permission or apology for making his interlocutor do anything that the interlocutor does not want to do. It seems that this rule might correspond to Brown and Levinson's strategy 5, that is: Don't do the FTA. Not doing the FTA means that the speaker does not enforce the hearer

2. The Lakoff's second rule is: "Offer options"

It means that a speaker expresses himself in such a way that his opinion or request can be ignored without being contradicted or rejected. This situation is appropriate if the speaker and the hearer have approximately equal status and power, but they are not so close in terms of social relationship. The example of such relationship can be found in the relationship between a businessman and a new client. The use of hedges and indirect acts could be appropriate in this case.

An example that Green (1996: 150) presents in this context is that instead of saying "You should get a haircut" it would be appropriate to say: "I wonder if it would help to get a haircut." The latter utterance offers options. This rule relates to Brown and Levinson's negative politeness strategy, in that both demonstrate awareness of another right whether doing the FTA or not.In other words, both negative politeness and Lakoff's Rule 2 give options by attempting to minimize any imposition that are unavoidable from the speaker's point of view.

3. The last Lakoff's rule relates to friendly or intimate politeness This rule says: "Encourage Feelings of Camaraderie". In other words the speaker makes the addressee feel good. This rule applies appropriately to intimate or close friends to show their intimacy. In this situation any topic of conversations seems to be appropriate, meaning that one should be able to talk anything with a close friend. However, there might still be some propositions that a close friend may have to hide or not to tell.

But in general, this strategy suggests that both the speaker and the hearer be expected not to mince words. They are expected to speak directly without hedges or hints. Speaking indirectly among participants in this context may imply that they risk speaking their mind freely. Direct statements or requests among participants show that the speaker believes that the relationship between him and the hearer is so strong that truths do not need to be disguised or softened. Both do not only show interest to each other but also show regard and trust by being open to each other.

Lakoff's Rule 3 seems to correspond to Brown and Levinson's baldly on record strategy and positive politeness strategy.

This correspondence can be seen in the extent that the speaker and hearer share so much that what might threaten the outsider's face in a certain occasion may not threaten their face in this context.

2.3 .Fraser 's (1990) There are other perspectives concerning

politeness strategies. These perspectives of politeness are proposed by Fraser (1990: 219-236). Fraser has found that there are four major perspectives on the treatment of politeness. Some of them relate to the strategies discussed previously.

The four perspectives of politeness include:

(1) the social-norm view of politeness; (2) the conversational-maxim view of

politeness; (3) the face-saving view of politeness;

and (4) the conversational-contract view of

politeness.

The social-norm view of politeness refers to the historical understanding of politeness which assumes that there is a particular set of social norms in the society which consists of rules prescribing a certain behavior, a state of affair, or a way of thinking in a context. This perspective also assumes that when an action is congruent with the norms, a positive evaluation arises. On the contrary, when an action is in contradiction with the norm, a negative evaluation arises. One of the rules of politeness in this view requires that people avoid topics which may cause any pains.

The second perspective of politeness according to Fraser is the conversational-maxim view. This perspective relies on the Cooperative Principles (CP) proposed by Grice.This principle provides that a speaker says what he has to say, when he has to say it and how he has to say it. In other words, a speaker should say the right thing at the right moment. On the basis of this CP, one formulates specific conversational maxims which become guidelines for language use in conversation. The maxims involve:

(1)Quantity, which suggests that the speaker does not say more and less; he should make the conversation as informative as required;

(2)Quality, which suggests that the speaker does not say what he believes to be false or for which he lacks adequate evidence;

(3)Relation, which suggests to make the contribution relevant; and

(4) Manner, which suggests to avoid ambiguity and obscurity.

Fraser's third perspective is the face saving view. This view relates to the concept of politeness proposed by Brown and Levinson. This perspective emphasizes the concept of face which constitutes some strategies of politeness.

The last perspective is the conversational contract view. In this perspective Fraser claims that his view adopts Grice's notion of Cooperative Principle but it is different from that of Brown and Levinson's in some ways. The assumption underlying this perspective is that each party in a given conversation has some initial sets of rights and obligations that will determine what participants expect from the others

During the conversation, it is possible for the two parties to change the context and renegotiate a conversational contract. It means that the two parties may readjust what rights and obligations they hold towards each other. Therefore, according to Fraser's perspective, politeness is not "a sometime thing". Participants in the conversation are aware that they have to act within the negotiated constraints. If they do not, they are regarded as being impolite. Thus, being polite does not necessarily mean making the hearer feel good as what Lakoff suggests in her rule 3, nor making the hearer not feel bad, as Brown and Levinson (1978) argue.

Being Polite simply follows the terms and the conditions of the conversational contract. The description about the perspectives and the strategies of politeness discussed above provides some universality of politeness. However, it is important to note that cultural values have a great influence of how a particular act will be deemed in a particular culture. Within a certain culture a speaker may employ different means of expressing politeness. These differences are not only due to their beliefs about what kind of situation a certain act is appropriate to, but also due to their personal preference.

2.4 .The Politeness Principle of Leech

The cooperative principle and the politeness principle have close relationship because they study about the use of language in communication using a set of principles or maxims that manage it.

Besides, the politeness principle appears to argue or announce the cooperative principle. Yet, the politeness principle states that not all people are being cooperative in a conversation to be polite.

Politeness concerns a relationship between self and other. In conversation, self is identified as the speaker and other is the hearer.

Besides, the speaker also shows politeness to a third party who may be present or not. The politeness principle (PP) is introduced by Geoffrey Leech. PP is minimizing ''other things being equal'' the expression of impolite beliefs, and there is a corresponding positive version (maximizing ''other things being equal'' the expression of polite beliefs) which is somewhat less important (Leech, 1983: 81, 131ff.). PP proposes how to produce and understand language based on politeness.

The purpose of PP is to establish a feeling of community and social relationship. Thus, PP focuses on the process of interpretation on the effect of the hearer rather than the speaker.

There are six maxims of the politeness principle that are used to explain the relationship between ''sense'' and ''force'' in daily conversation.

In measuring politeness, those maxims correlate with the pragmatic scales which will be explained in the next subsection.

2.4.1. Maxims of Politeness

The explanation and the example of each maxim will be discussed briefly below:

1. The Tact MaximThe tact maxim is minimizing cost to

other and maximizing benefit to other. This maxim is applied to Searle’s speech acts of commissives and directives(called by Leech as impositives).

Commissives are found in utterances that express the speaker’s intention in the future action. Directives / impositives are expressions that influence the hearer to do action.

Consider the example of the tact maxim below:

“Won‘t you sit down?”

It is the directive / impositive utterance which is spoken to ask the hearer to sit down.

The speaker uses an indirect utterance to be more polite and thus minimizing cost to the hearer.

This utterance implies that sitting down is a benefit to the hearer.

2. The Generosity MaximThe generosity maxim refers to minimizing benefit to self and maximizing cost to self. Like tact maxim, the generosity maxim occurs in commissives and directives / impositives. This maxim is self oriented while the tact maxim is directed to other. An illustrative example is below:

“You must come and dinner with us.”

It is an advice utterance that is involved in directive illocutionary act. In this case the speaker implies that cost of the utterance is to his ''self''. Meanwhile, the utterance implies that benefit is for the hearer.

3. The Approbation Maxim

The approbation maxim requires minimizing dispraise of other and maximizing praise of other. This maxim is used to avoid saying unpleasant things about others, especially about the hearer. This maxim occurs in assertive / representatives and expressives. Assertives / representatives are utterances that express the true propositional content. Meanwhile, expressive are utterances that show the speaker's feeling.

An example is sampled below:

A: “The performance was great!”

B: “Yes, wasn’t it!”

In the example, A gives a good comment about the performance. He mentions a pleasant thing about other. This expression is a congratulation utterance that maximizes praise of other. Thus this utterance includes the approbation maxim.

4. The Modesty Maxim

In the modesty maxim, the participants must minimize praise of self and maximize dispraise of self. This maxim is applied to assertive / representatives and expressives like the approbation maxim. Both the approbation maxim and the modesty maxim are concern with the degree of good or bad evaluation of other or self that is performed by the speaker. The approbation maxim is shown, for instance, by courtesy of congratulation.

On other hand, the modesty maxim usually occurs in apologies. A sample of the modesty maxim is below:

“Please accept this small gift as prize of your achievement.”

In this case, the utterance above is categorized as the modesty maxim because the speaker maximizes dispraise of himself. The speaker notices or identifies his utterance by using “small gift”.

5. The Agreement MaximIn the agreement maxim, there is a tendency to maximize agreement between self and other and minimize disagreement between self and other.The disagreement, in this maxim, usually is expressed by regret or partial agreement. This maxim occurs in assertive / representatives illocutionary acts. Consider the example below:

A: “English is a difficult language to learn.”B: “True, but the grammar is quite easy.”

From the example above, B actually does not agree that all parts of English language are difficult to learn.

He does not express his disagreement strongly, to be more polite. The polite answer will influence the viewpoint of the hearer.

In this case, B’s answer minimizes his disagreement using partial agreement, “true, but…”.

6. The Sympathy Maxim

The sympathy maxim refers to ''minimize antipathy between self and other and maximize sympathy between self and other''. In this case, the achievement being reached by other, for instance, must be appreciated and evaluated. On other hand, the calamity that happens to other must be given sympathy or condolences. This maxim is applicable to assertive / representatives, as in:

“I’m terribly sorry to hear about your father.”

It is a condolence expression which expresses the sympathy for the misfortune.

This utterance is uttered when the hearer gets calamity of his father’s being dead or sick.

This expression shows the solidarity between the speaker and the hearer.

2.4.2 .Pragmatic Scales

In order to define the parameters of the various values ''cost, benefit, praise, sympathy, etc.'' Leech suggests scales that operate on the maxims of politeness (ibid.: , 107-110, 123-127).

The discussion below is the description of each scale proposed by Leech:

1. The Cost-benefit ScaleThe cost-benefit scale is the scale that is

oriented to cost and benefit for the speaker or the hearer. This scale pushes the speaker to measure the amount of the cost to himself and the amount of the benefit to the hearer.

In this case, if the cost for the hearer is higher than the benefit, the utterances are less polite. Meanwhile, if the benefit for the hearer is higher than the cost, the utterances are more polite.

From the explanation, it can be indicated that the higher cost to the hearer is less politeness, while the higher benefit to him is greater politeness.

2. The Optionality Scale

The optionality scale indicates the order of the performed illocutions according to the degree or amount of choice that the speaker allows to the hearer. In this case, the speaker gives an option to the hearer to answer or give respond towards the illocution of what the speaker uttered.

If the speaker gives an option to the hearer to choose the response, it will be more polite.

3. The Indirectness Scale

The indirectness scale measures the amount of work done by the hearer in interpreting the illocution of what the speaker has said.

The amount of indirectness will influence the increase of the cost to the speaker and the decrease of the benefit to the hearer.

In this case, the higher indirectness indicates the higher politeness. The examples are like follows:

(1) Could you possibly answer the phone? (indirectness , more polite) (2) Would you mind answering the phone?(3) Can you answer the phone?(4) Will you answer the phone?(5) I want you to answer the phone.(6) Answer the phone! ( less polite )

From the examples above, the degree of indirectness influences the degree of politeness. Utterances that are more indirect are more polite.

4. The Power/ Authority Scale

The power or authority scale represents the social status of the relationship between the participants. This shows whether the speaker sees the person who is addressed is superior or equal. It means that the way the speaker talks reflects his relationship to the hearer. For instance, the employee will call the superior “Sir” while his superior calls him by his name. A person with higher position has the authority to order a command to a person with lower position.

5. The Social Distance Scale

The social distance scale indicates the degree of respectfulness which depends on real factors; age, social class, sex, etc.

This scale is used to show difference, existence, or solidarity between group members. For instance, people who have known each other will show a higher solidarity to each other. On the contrary, people who are in distant relationship will have a low solidarity to each other

3. ActivityThe activity of analysis is based upon the

politeness principle of Leech. The design of this activity follows a descriptive method. The data about utterances which are containing the maxims of politeness principle used by the characters of “Night and Day” play of Tom Stoppard (1978) is described based on Leech' s politeness principle.

The data is the utterances spoken by the characters showing the maxims of politeness principle that are tact maxim, generosity maxim, approbation maxim, modesty maxim, agreement maxim, and sympathy maxim. The characters whose utterances are analyzed are based on Geoffrey Leech’s theory.

After collecting the sample of data from the play, the data is analyzed. There are some activities in analyzing the data. Firstly, the context of the situation in the conversation that employs the maxims of politeness principle in the play will be explained.Secondly, the data is explained based on the types of illocutionary act that occurs. Next, the data is classified and interpreted based on Leech’s theory of the politeness principle. It will be classified into tact, generosity, approbation, modesty, agreement and sympathy maxim.Then, the research discusses how the characters in the play utter the maxims of politeness principle. It explains the pragmatic scales used by the characters.

Synopsis of Tom Stoppard's Play '' Night and Day '' Tom Stoppard's stimulating, funny play Night and Day is set in a fictional black African country, Kambawe, which is ruled by a leader not unlike Idi Amin. The nation is faced with a Soviet-backed revolution which quickly brings newsmen from around the world to cover the story. Using the characters Ruth; her husband, Geoffrey Carson, a mine owner; an Australian veteran reporter, Dick Wagner; and an idealistic young journalist, Jacob Milne, Stoppard pits the ideal of a Free Press against that of working-class solidarity. During the course of the play, each character is given an opportunity to make his case heard as the revolution unfolds.

Let's examine the beginning of Stoppard’s Night and Day (1978: 3ff.). The setting is Kambawa, a fictitious former British Colony in Africa. Ruth is married to Geoffrey Carson who runs the business side of the local mining industry. Ruth has just returned to find Guthrie installed in her house; he is an internationally celebrated press photographer and has come to the house to meet the journalist Dick Wagner. (At this point in the play, the audience won’t know that Ruth, whilst picking up her son from a prep school a few days earlier, had slept with Wagner in a hotel in London.) ‘Ruth’ (in inverted commas) represents Ruth’s inner voice or thoughts. Jeddu is the capital of Kambawe and KC is Kambawe City.

( FRANCIS re-enters with a tea-tray ).RUTH )1( Thank you, Francis. )2( Has the house been opened to the public? FRANCIS )3( What’s that, Mrs. Carson? )This gets through to GUTHRIE.( GUTHRIE )4( Oh – God – I’m terribly sorry. RUTH )5( I shouldn’t get up; you look awful. )To FRANCIS who is leaving.( )6( Another cup.

)RUTH’s manner is easy-going. GUTHRIE gets up.( GUTHRIE )7( No – I’m fine. )8( Sleeping on planes – you know. )9( Ruins the complexion. )10( From the inside. )11( My name’s Guthrie – George Guthrie.

Analysis1.Context : Francis, the African servant, re-enters the room of Ruth with his tea-tray. Ruth starts the conversation.Utterance : RUTH (1) Thank you, Francis.Analysis : This first utterance expresses the gratitude of the speaker, Ruth, to the hearer, Francis. It is the speech act of ''expressive'' that is carried out here. The Approbation Maxim is followed in its aspect of maximizing praise to others. The politeness of Ruth's utterance in the conversation above can be looked at from the pragmatic scale that is used. Her utterance carries higher benefit to the hearer and thus it is more polite.

2. Context : Ruth goes on in the conversation, addressing Francis in the form of a question.Utterance : RUTH… (2) Has the house been opened to the public?Analysis : The form of the question directed to Francis does not seek a yes-no answer as much as it indicates or conveys a criticism of what is done. She seems annoyed by the presence of Guthrie in her room.

She fulfills the speech act of ''expressive''. Yet, she flouts the Approbation Maxim, particularly the aspect of ''minimizing the dispraise of other''.

The politeness of Ruth's utterance in the conversation above can be looked at from the pragmatic scale that is used.

However, she has the right (Power/Authority) to use a tone of criticism as she is the owner of the house.

She is more direct but with a different linguistic form set for her purposes. Her utterance carries higher cost and thus it is less polite.

3. Context : Francis seems to understand Ruth's criticism, and thus asks for clarification of Ruth's intention.

Utterance : FRANCIS (3) What’s that, Mrs. Carson? Analysis : Francis expresses his surprise at Mrs. Carson's criticism of him. He does not want to show directly that he dislikes her remark. Thus he puts that in a form of exclamatory question. He fulfills the speech act of ''expressive''. He follows the Approbation Maxim I that he minimizes dispraise to other.

Francis being a servant and Ruth being superior to him necessitate the presence of this maxim. Francis being a servant and Ruth being superior to him necessitate the presence of this maxim.

His utterance is of lower cost to the hearer; he is more polite. That is why his utterance indirectly expresses his dislike. There is less or even no solidarity shared between the two.

4. Context : Moving to another direction of the talk between characters, one sees Guthrie participating. He understands the intention of Ruth's remark ,''This gets through to GUTHRIE'', as referring to her disapproval of his presence in her house. Utterance : GUTHRIE (4) Oh – God – I’m terribly sorry. Analysis : Guthrie expresses his apology for being in the house without her consent. This is clear in '' Oh – God – '' supported by '' I’m terribly sorry''. It is the speech act of ''expressive'' which Guthrie uses here. He commits himself to the Modesty Maxim by minimizing praise of self. He shows higher cost to self; he is a stranger with less or no solidarity shred between him and Ruth. That is why he is more polite.

5. Context : Ruth addresses Guthrie saying that he does not look well, as a part of sharing the talk between them. Utterance : RUTH (5) I shouldn’t get up; you look awful.Analysis : Ruth shows sympathy to Guthrie as she notices that he does not look well. It is the speech act of ''assertive'' that she follows. She recognizes the Sympathy Maxim by maximizing sympathy between her ''self'' and Guthrie. It is realized through the subjunctive ''should'' plus a statement of pity. The utterance carries higher benefit to the hearer (as if she intends to repair her earlier comment). She states her sympathy indirectly and thus shows politeness toward Guthrie.

6. Context : Ruth asks Francis who is leaving for another cup of tea.Utterance : (6) Another cup.Analysis : Ruth orders Francis to get her another cup of tea. This utterance represents the speech act of ''commissive''. She violates the Tact Maxim by maximizing cost to Francis through putting her request directly. The utterance puts higher cost upon the hearer. Ruth leaves or gives no choices to or for Francis but to respond. It is direct as there is no solidarity between them and thus less polite.

7. Context : Now Ruth is easy-going in her manner, and Guthrie gets up and says:

Utterance : GUTHRIE (7) No – I’m fine.

Analysis : Guthrie shows his disagreement with Ruth's remark ''you look awful''. He does that through the speech act of ''assertive''. For the time being he is maximizing disagreement, i.e.; breaking the Agreement Maxim. The utterance is indirect on the pragmatic scale ranging. But in the following utterances he tries to minimize his agreement by stating why he looks ''awful'':

(8) Sleeping on planes – you know.

(9) Ruins the complexion.

(10) From the inside.

These utterances are all ''assertives''. They show lower cost to the hearer and therefore are polite.

11.

(11) My name’s Guthrie – George Guthrie. Guthrie follows the speech act of ''declarative'', in Searle's terms, which Leech excludes from his list of maxims since it does not involve politeness in his opinion.

Conclusions

You will agree with me that tact is very important in language use. You can imagine how peaceful our families and societies would be if everyone should apply some tact in the way we talk to one another.

You will also that most conflicts in our society today is traceable to the fact that someone had forgotten the principle of face-saving and the other person had reacted rather harshly.

We should now begin to apply these principles in our language use so that our relationships might be better as well as our world.

Like tact, politeness functions as the grease that lubricates our communication with others. Every one of us is constantly in need of being loved, accepted, protected and recognized. Fortunately the language system, especially language use has provided the means of providing for these needs. Linguistic politeness is the pragmatic use of language in such a way that protects other people’s self image, self-esteem and self respect. And this is reciprocal. Even though cultural interpretation of utterance makes it sometimes difficult to really generalize what constitutes polite expressions, we know however that politeness itself is universal.

ReferencesBrown P., Levinson S. C. (1978) Universals in language usage: politeness phenomena. In Goody E. N. (Ed.), Questions and politeness: Strategies in social interaction (pp. 56-289). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Fraser, B. (1990) Perspectives on Politeness. Journal of Pragmatics, 14, 219-236. Goody ,E.N. (ed.) (1978) Questions and Politeness. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Green, GM. (1996) Pragmatics and Natural Language Understanding. New Jersey: Laurence Erlbaum.Lakoff, R.T. (1973) The Logic of Politeness; or, Minding Your P's and Q's. Chicago: Chicago Linguistic Society. Leech, G. (1983) Principles of Pragmatics. London: Longman.Stoppard, T. (1978) Night and Day. New York: Grove Press. Yule, G. (1996a) Pragmatics. Oxford: Oxford University Press. Yule, G. (1996b) The Study of Language, 2nd Ed. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.