POLITENESS
• SITI AGRI RIYANTI
• ARIEN HUSNA
• IRRA WAHIDIYATI
• TUTI HASTUTI
Theories of Politeness
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
Introduction
Delimiting the concept of politeness
Politeness as a real-world goal
Deference versus politeness
Register
Politeness as an utterance level phenomenon
Politeness as an pragmatic phenomenon
Introduction
 Politeness is best expressed as the practical application of
good manners or etiquette
 In the past twenty-five years within pragmatics there has been
a great deal of interest in “politeness” to such an extent that
politeness theory could almost be seen as a sub-discipline of
pragmatics.
 Politeness can be defined as the means employed to show
awareness of another person’s face.
 In this sense, politeness can be accomplished in situations of
social distance or closeness. Showing awareness for another
person’s face when that other seems socially distant is often
described in terms of respect or difference.
Delimiting the concept of
politeness
• The vast literature on politeness which has built up since
the late 1970 we find tremendous confusion.
• The confusion begins with the very term politeness,
which like cooperation has caused much
misunderstanding.
• The heading of politeness have five separate, though
related, sets of phenomena as; politeness as a real-world
goal, deference, register, politeness as a surface level
phenomenon, politeness as an illocutionary
phenomenon.
Politeness as a real-world goal
• Politeness as a real-world goal defined
politeness interpreted as a genuine desire to be
pleasant to others, or as the underlying
motivation for an individual’s linguistic behavior
has no place within pragmatics.
• In politeness as a real-world goal have no access
to speaker’s real motivation for speaking as they
do, and discussions as to whether one group of
people is “politer” than another.
• In politeness have access only to what the
speakers say and to how their hearers react.
Deference versus politeness
Deference
• Deference is connected with
politeness, but is a distinct
phenomenon; it is a opposite
of familiarity.
Politeness
• Politeness is a more general
matter of showing (rather, of
giving the appearance of
showing) consideration to
other.
• Both deference and politeness can be manifested
through general social behavior as well as by
linguistics means. Such as we can show
deference by standing up when a person of
superior status enters a room, or show
politeness by holding a door open to allow
someone else to pass through.
• Deference and politeness are distinct, though
related systems, by noting that it is possible to be
deferential without being polite.
Register
 Register is primarily a sociolinguistic phenomenon: a
description of the linguistic forms which generally
occur in a particular situation.
 Choice of register has little to do with the strategic
use of language and it only becomes of interest to the
pragmatics if a speaker deliberately uses unexpected
forms in order to change the situation or to challenge
the status quo.
 Register has little to do with politeness and little
connection with pragmatics, since we have no real
choice about whether or not to use formal language
in formal situations.
Politeness as an utterance level
phenomenon
• Politeness as an utterance level phenomenon
defined his interest as being to investigate how
much politeness could be squeezed out of speech
act strategies alone and to investigate the
perception of politeness by native and nonnative speakers.
• In utterance level phenomenon , we find relates
to the pragmatics and sociolinguistics such as
listing the linguistics forms which can be used to
perform a speech act in a given language is not
pragmatics, any more than, say, listing all the
words etc.
• In politeness as an utterance phenomenon find
that one language has forms available for
performing a particular speech act and that
these correspond in another language.
• In politeness as an utterance phenomenon find
how a particular form in a particular language is
used strategically in order to achieve the
speaker’s goal, the perceived politeness of a
speech act, and unsafe to equate surface
linguistic form with politeness is that some
Politeness as a pragmatic
phenomenon
• Politeness as a pragmatic phenomenon defined
has focused on writings politeness is interpreted
as a strategy (series of a strategies) employed by
a speaker to achieve a variety of goals.
• These strategies may include the strategies use
of the conventional politeness strategies but also
include a range of other strategies, including
many forms of conventional and nonconventional indirectness.
Politeness explained in terms of principles and maxims


Before Leech, there are two main approaches to politeness. Firstly Lakoff
sees Grice’s rules as essentially rules of clarity, and proposes that there are
two prior rules of pragmatic competence: “Be Clear” and “Be Polite”.
Here, clarity amounts to a condensed version of the Gricean maxims, while
politeness serves to avoid conflicts between participants. She proposes
her own three rules of politeness:




formality: don’t impose/remain aloof;
hesitancy: give the addressee his options;
equality: act as though you and the addressee were equal/make him feel good
Secondly, the face-saving view of politeness, proposed by Brown and
Levinson (1978) is related to the folk expression “lose face”. They suggest
two kinds of face.
• One is “positive face”, the positive consistent self-image
that people have and want to be appreciated and
approved of by at least some other people.
• The other is “negative face” or the rights to territories,
freedom of action and freedom from imposition;
essentially the want that your actions be not impeded by
others.
• Negative politeness is found in ways of mitigating the
imposition:
▫ Hedging: Er, could you, er, perhaps, close the, um ,
window?
▫ Pessimism: I don't suppose you could close the window,
could you?
▫ Indicating deference: Excuse me, sir, would you mind if
I asked you to close the window?
▫ Apologizing: I'm terribly sorry to put you out, but could
you close the window?
▫ Impersonalizing: The management requires all windows
to be closed.
• Brown and Levinson sum up human politeness behaviour in
four strategies, which correspond to these examples:
▫ The bald on-record strategy: does nothing to minimize threats
to the hearer's “face”
▫ Examples:




An emergency: Help!
Task oriented: Give me those!
Request: Put your jacket away.
Alerting: Turn your lights on! (while driving)
▫ The positive politeness strategy: shows you recognize that your
hearer has a desire to be respected. It also confirms that the
relationship is friendly and expresses group reciprocity.
▫ Examples:
 Attend to the hearer: You must be hungry, it's a long time since
breakfast. How about some lunch?
 Avoid disagreement: A: What is she, small? B: Yes, yes, she's small,
smallish, um, not really small but certainly not very big
 Assume agreement: So when are you coming to see us?
 Hedge opinion: You really should sort of try harder.
▫ The negative politeness strategy: also recognizes the hearer's
face. But it also recognizes that you are in some way imposing on
them. Some other examples would be to say, “I don't want to
bother you but...” or “I was wondering if...”
▫ Example:
 Be indirect: I'm looking for a pen.
 Request forgiveness: You must forgive me but....
 Minimize imposition: I just want to ask you if I could use your
computer?
 Pluralize the person responsible: We forgot to tell you that
you needed to by your plane ticket by yesterday.
▫ The off-record indirect strategies: take some of the pressure
off of you. You are trying to avoid the direct Face Threatening Act
of asking for a beer. Instead you would rather it be offered to you
once your hearer sees that you want one.
▫ Examples:
 Give hints: It's a bit cold in here.
 Be vague: Perhaps someone should have been more responsible.
 Be sarcastic, or joking: Yeah, he's a real Einstein (rocket
scientist, Stephen Hawking, genius and so on)!
Ambivalent and Politeness
• Leech looks on politeness as the crucial in accounting
for why people are so often indirect in conveying what
they mean. He thus puts forward PP so as to rescue the
CP in the sense that PP can satisfactorily explain
exception to and apparent deviations from the CP.
• By employing an utterance which is ambivalent (i.e. one
which has more than one potential pragmatics force), it
is possible to convey messages which the hearer is liable
to find disagreeable without causing undue offence.
• The pragmatic force will be ambivalent and it is left to
the readers to decide (a) what the precise force of the
message is and (b) whether or not it applies to them.
• Example:
• If you want to enjoy the full flavour of your food and
drink you will, naturally, not smoke during the meal.
Moreover, if you did smoke you would also be
impairing enjoyment of other guests.
• At a very expensive gourmet restaurant, the
management obviously though it inappropriate
simply to put up ‘No Smoking’ sign. Instead, it is left
to the guests to decide for themselves whether they
are being asked or ordered not to smoke.
Pragmatic Principles
• Leech introduces the Politeness Principle (PP):
Minimize (all things being equal) the expression
of impolite beliefs; Maximize (all things being
equal) the expression of polite beliefs
• Leech introduces a number of maxims which he
claims stand in the same relationship to the PP
as Grice’s maxims (the Cooperative Principle).
• He argues that these maxims are necessary in
order to explain the relationship between sense
and force in human conversation.
The six maxims of the PP
Maxim of tact
• Minimize cost to other.
• Maximize benefit to other.
Maxim of generosity
• Minimize benefit to self.
• Maximize cost to self.
Maxim of approbation
• Minimize dispraise of other.
• Maximize praise of other.
Maxim of modesty
• Minimize praise of self.
• Maximize dispraise of self.
Maxim of agreement
• Minimize disagreement between self and other.
• Maximize agreement between self and other.
Maxim of sympathy
• Minimize antipathy between self and other
• Maximize sympathy between self and other.
Maxim of tact
• The tact maxim relates to the size of imposition
(which can be reduced by using ‘minimizer’),
offering optionality (to mitigate the effect of a
request), and the cost/benefit scale.
• Examples:
• Could I interrupt you for a second? If I could just
clarify this then.
• Would it be possible for you to lend me your car?
• Could you lend me your car?
• Will you lend me your car？
• Lend your car.
• You must lend me your car!
Maxim of generosity
• This maxim can be said as minimize the expression
if cost to other and maximize the expression of
benefit to other.
• Examples:
• You must have another sandwich.
• Do you have another sandwich？
• Please have another sandwich.
• Would you like to have another sandwich?
• Would it be possible for you to have another
sandwich?
• Would you mind having another sandwich?
Maxim of approbation
• We prefer to praise others and if we cannot do so, to
sidestep the issue, to give some sort of minimal
response (Well …) or to remain silent.
• Examples:
• It is normal to say: I enjoyed your lecture, while if you
did not enjoy it, you would either keep quite about it
or convey the fact more indirectly.
• You are the best cook in the world.
• What a marvelous cook you are!
• You are really a good cook.
• You certainly know something about cooking.
Maxim of modesty
• The modesty maxim may, for example, lead
someone to reject a compliment which had been
paid to them.
• Examples:
• A:What a bright boy you are! You always get full
marks.
• B:Thank you. I have very good teachers.
• B2：Thank you. The exam questions are not that
hard.
• B3:Thank you, but I am not the only one in the class
that gets full marks.
• B4:Yes, I am, ain’t I?
Maxim of agreement
• People are much more direct in expressing their
agreement, than disagreement.
• Someone who holds a diametrically opposed
view to the one usually expressed begin a
counter-argument by saying “Yes, but …”
• Example:
• A: I don’t 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.
Maxim of sympathy
• A：I lost my kitten last week and I still can not
get over it.
• B1:It is the most unfortunate that you lost your
pet.
• B2:I know what it is like. You have all my
sympathy.
• B3:I am sorry to hear that.
• B4:So,we don’t annoyed by that nasty little
animal any more.
The agreement maxim
Minimize the expression of disagreement between self and other,
Maximize the expression of agreement between self and other.
Example 18
Mr. Sharma
‘O’
Mrs. Green
visit.
Example 19
Mr. Sharma
class will
Mrs. Green
: ……. I don’t want my daughter to do CSE, I want her to do
level.
: yes, but Mr. Sharma, I thought we resolved this on your last
: Nehemulla is ideally suited to the class she’s in and this
do CSE in two year’s time.
: No, my dear, no, no, it’s wrong!
Mrs. Green is deputy head teacher of a school (a British women), Mr. Sharma,
the Indian-born father of one of the pupils attending her school. They are
involved in a major disagreement concerning the courses Mr. Sharma’s
daughter will take the following year. Although Mrs. Green disagrees strongly
with Mr. Sharma, she nevertheless observes the ‘Agreement Maxim’ to high
degree.
The Pollyanna Principle
The use of ‘minimizers’ such as a bit (‘this essay’s a bit short’, when in
fact it is too much too short), but this is a strategy which is already
adequately dealt with under the heading of ‘reducing the size of
imposition’.
Example 20
The speaker had just ‘lost’ two hours’ work on the word-processor.
‘Ah well, I’ll probably write it better second time around.’
Example 21
The two speakers were discussing the bad impression which visitors
would gain because of the appalling weather on a university open
day.
A : They’re not exactly seeing the place at its beast!
B : Well, at least it’s not snowing.
Politeness and the Management of
Face
According to Brown and Levinson (1987; 61) the term
‘face’ as the public self-image that every member wants
to claim for himself, consisting in two related aspects;
 Negative face
: The basic claim to the territories,
personal preserves, rights to non distraction- i.e. to
freedom of action and freedom from imposition.
 Positive face
: The positive consistent self-image
or ‘personality’ (crucially including the desire that
this self-image be appreciated and approved of)
claimed by interactants.
According to Goffman (1967; 5) defined face as;
……the positive social value a person effectively
claims for himself by the line others assume he
has taken during a particular contact. Face is a
image of self delineated in terms of approved
social attributes – albeit an image that others
may share, as when a person makes a good
showing for his profession or religion by making
a good showing for himself.
Within politeness theory ‘Face’ is best understood as
every individual’s feeling of self-worth or self-image;
this image can be damaged, maintained or enhanced
through interaction with others.
Face has two aspects;
 Positive face
: reflected in his or her desire to be
liked, approved of, respected and appreciated by
others.
 Negative face
: reflected in the desire not to be
impeded or put upon, to have the freedom to act as
one chooses.
Face Threatening Acts
According to Brown and Levinson, certain illocutionary acts
are liable to damage or threaten another person’s face; such
acts are known as ‘face threatening acts’ (FTAs).
An illocutionary act has the potential to;
 Damage the hearer’s positive face
For example; by, insulting H or expressing disapproval of
something which H holds dear.
 Damage the hearer’s negative face
For example; an order, will impinge upon H’s freedom of
action.
 Damage the speaker’s own positive face
Speaker has to admit to having botched a job.
 Damage the speaker’s own negative face
Speaker is concerned into making an offer of help.
In order to reduce the possibility of damage to H’s
face or to the speaker’s own face, he/she may adopt
certain strategies. The choice of strategy will be
made on the basis of the speaker’s assessment of
the size of the FTA. The speaker can calculate the
size of the FTA on the basis of parameters of;
 Power (P)
 Distance (D)
 Rating of imposition (R)
Super strategies for performing face
threatening acts
Possible Strategies for doing FTAs
Without redressive action, bald on record
On record
Positive politeness
Do the FTA
with redressive action
Negative politeness
Off record
Strategies
Don’t do the FTA
Performing an FTA without any redress (bald on record)
The speaker is likely to focus on the propositional content
of the message, and play little attention to the interpersonal
aspect of what is said.
Example 25
The speaker knows that a bomb has been planted in the
stands at his racecourse. He thinks his young nephew is
hiding in the stands.
…….Toby, get off the stands. The stands are not safe. Toby,
for Christ’s sake does what I say. This is not a game. Come
on, you little bugger…….for once in your life, be told.
Performing an FTA with redress (positive
politeness)
Within Brown and Levinson’s theory, when you speak to someone you may orient yourself towards
that individual’s positive face, and employ positive politeness (which appeals to H’s desire to be liked
and approved of).
Brown and Levinson list fifteen positive politeness strategies, those are;
1.
Notice, attend to H (his interest, wants, needs, goods)
2.
Exaggerate (approval and sympathy with H)
3.
Intensify interest to H
4.
Use in group identity markers
5.
Seek agreement
6.
Avoid disagreement
7.
Presuppose/raise/assert common ground
8.
Joke
9.
Assert or presuppose S’s knowledge of and concern for H’s wants
10.
Offer, promise
11.
Be optimistic
12.
Include both S and H in the activity
13.
Give (or ask for) reasons
14.
Assume or assert reciprocity
15.
Give gifts to H (good, sympathy, understanding, cooperation)
Example 30
Male first- year student calling to female first- year students (whom
he didn’t know) in their college bar during ‘Fresher’s week’.
Hey, Blondie, what are you studying, then? French and Italian? Join
the club!
The young man employed no fewer than three Brown and Levinson’s
politeness strategies;
1. Use in group identity markers
Blondie
2. Express interest in H
asking her what she is
studying
3. Claim common ground
join the club!
Performing FTA with
negative politeness
-Negative
politeness is oriented towards a
hearer’s negative face
-manifests irself in the use of conventional
politeness
markers,
deference
markers, minimizing imposition, etc
Some negative politeness strategies
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
6.
7.
Be conventionally indirect
Hedge
Minimize imposition
Admit the impingiment and beg forgiveness
Point of view distancing
Go on record as incurring a debt
State FTA as a general rule
Performing FTA using off record
politeness
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
Give hints
Use metaphor
Be ambiguous or vague
Be incomplete/use ellipsis
etc
Do not perform FTA
There are times when something is
potentially so face threatening, that we
dont say it. We use:
1. Saying nothing strategy
2. Opting out choice strategy
Politeness viewed as a
conversational contract
According to Fraser (1990), people are
constrained in interaction called ‘conversational
contract’ which people bring to an interaction of
the norms obtaining within that interaction and
of their rights and obligations within it