LINGUISTIC POLITENESS
In interpersonal communication, we usually try to be polite. A ‘well-bred’,
educated person uses please and thank you, Could you pass the salt please? (not
just Pass the salt) almost automatically. Meeting a friend or coming into a shop,
they do not forget to say Good morning; they wish people a merry Christmas and
congratulate them on graduation or promotion, do not use rude words or
vulgarisms, and so forth. This is a popular view on politeness. In this sense,
politeness is a universal norm of behaviour. We are taught social politeness in
childhood by our parents and school teachers. One of my favourite pictures by Carl
Larsson, a famous Swedish painter, is Say a Nice How-Do-You-Do to Your Uncle.
In the picture, a mother introduces her young child to a relative. Apparently it is
their first meeting because there is a cautious look on the child’s face.
Politeness can also be viewed from pragmatic perspective. The most
influential theoretical model of politeness is proposed by Brown and Levinson
(1987). They regard politeness as a linguistic phenomenon that reflects social
relationship between the speaker and the addressee. Actually the way we talk to
other people shows how we feel about them. For example, social politeness
prescribes avoiding topics such as one’s financial status, religion, age, etc. In
European and North American cultures, personal questions like How old are you?
or How much do you earn? are considered to be impolite and socially
unacceptable. If someone is insensitive enough to ask such a question, it is
perceived as familiarity and tactlessness. But we do not hesitate to give a truthful
answer if such questions are asked, say, by a doctor or a lawyer. We do not feel
any imposition; on the contrary – if we need professional advice, we depend to an
extent on the person who gives it. In such situations, direct questions and straight
answers are a sign of trust between communicators.
Another example of how people understand their relationships is the use of
the deferential forms of the tu/vous (Ukrainian ти/Ви) type. I remember I was
unpleasantly surprised when my new neighbour (I had just moved into a new
appartment) used the second person singular pronoun ти the first day we met. It
was not deliberate rudeness – skipping social niceties was just her way of
establishing personal relationship. Somehow, such a blunt instrument did not work
with me. We had been neighbours for ten years, but never friends. To emphasize
the distance between us, I stuck to the formal Ви and she persisted in using the
familiar ти. Under the circumstances, I perceived ти not as an expression of
friendliness, but as an imposition.
Thus one of the key notions of the pragmatic politeness theory is the
appropriateness of expression; it correlates with the degree of formality in
speaker-addressee relationship. Both the speaker and the addressee have their own
idea of how they want to be treated by a particular person in a particular situation.
Whatever we say to other people – make a request, offer or suggest
something, tell a joke, ask a question – may be regarded as imposition on their
freedom of action, freedom of choice, on their time or privacy. Everyone can
remember being stopped in the street and offered some product or service they do
not actually need, being asked opinion poll questions over the telephone; strangers
ask us for directions; friends tell us jokes and we are supposed to laugh no matter
whether we find them amusing or not; we are asked to parties and dinners, etc. In
some cases, we do not regard social interaction as imposition (people usually feel
pleased being invited to a birthday party). On some other occasions, interaction
may be unwanted.
People dislike imposition for two main reasons: (a) they find the thing that is
imposed on/requested from them inconvenient, (b) they dislike the way in which it
is done; the very form of expression strikes them as too direct, impolite, or
familiar.
My friend K, a note of irritation in her voice, told me how she was
‘questioned’ by an acquaintance about her house renovation expenses. The two
ladies met in a store when K was paying for a lot of expensive things – a shower
cubicle, wash basins, taps, mixers, and bathroom tiles. K was busy, besides she did
not feel like discussing her financial resources with someone she barely knew. But
the other lady persisted in saying she was also planning to redecorate her flat.
I do not like my students telling me Look, I’ve read this text and… or Tell
Professor X that… . I explain to every new year I teach that Look is the right form
to address a peer, not someone with a higher professional status, and that I am not
their secretary to pass messages to other professors.
What is disregarded in such situations is the notion of social distance.
Sometimes social distance is less important though. At a football game the fans of
the same team feel like brothers; family members may be of different age but they
usually have close relationships; old school friends may not pay attention to their
current social difference (if they are true friends). Within such groups, the distance
factor is relatively unimportant. But interlocutors whose age and social positions
are different, who do not know each other well enough or are total strangers must
take social distance into account and choose appropriate verbal forms and patterns
of behaviour to achieve the desired result.
Power relationship is also a factor that influences the process of
communication. Another friend of mine, the Headmistress of a local school, told
me a story of how a pupil’s parent ‘succeeded’ in making a bad impression on his
first visit to the school. The man entered the Headmistress’s office with the words,
You must help me. It turned out he wanted to ask leave to absent his son for a week
but the reason was not convincing enough. The word must was obviously not the
best option under the circumstances.
Therefore, to achieve their goal, the speaker should take into account the
social distance and power relationship between themselves and the addressee. The
degree of imposition should be balanced against these social factors.
Researching the phenomenon of linguistic politeness, Brown and Levinson
used the notion of face introduced by Ervin Goffman in The Presentation of Self in
Everyday Life back in 1959. Face is related to the popular idea of one’s reputation,
respect, and self-esteem.
What irritates and even frightens us when we are approached by other
people, especially if they address us in the way we consider to be wrong, is the
possibility of losing our face. Everyone has the idea of how they should be
addressed by different people in different situations. If these expectations are met,
we feel safe and our self-esteem is not threatened. Trying to be polite and to
establish or maintain good relationships with other people, we save our face and let
others save theirs. Humiliating people, we threaten their (and our own!) selfesteem. Humiliation is an extreme face-threatening situation though. As it has been
mentioned above, we risk losing our face whenever we are approached by other
people.
Brown and Levinson make a distinction between positive and negative face.
Positive face implies that a person’s values are shared, personality is admired,
actions are approved of. Negative face is a person’s freedom of action, right not to
be disturbed by others, wish to do things their own way. Thus paying someone a
compliment on her new outfit, we save her positive face. Suffering silently in a
crowded compartment on a train, we save the negative face of another passenger
who has a bad cold and, presumably, would not enjoy sitting by the open window.
Disagreement, disapproval, criticism, accusation, or insult threaten the addressee’s
positive face. Their negative face is threatened if the speaker gives them orders,
warnings, or pieces of advice, makes requests or suggestions. Threats, complaints,
interruptions threaten both positive and negative face of the addressee. The
speaker’s face is threatened when they accept compliments, thank the addressee, or
make confessions, in other words, if the speaker signals that they admit the socially
dominant role of the addressee.
As it is almost impossible to avoid some degree of imposition, people use all
sorts of redressive expressions to minimize its effect. Please and Could you…?
seem to be the simplest and the most common patterns. The greater the degree of
imposition and/or the social distance between interlocutors, the more elaborate
linguistic forms should be used. Social niceties such as Excuse me, could you, and
please are sometimes dropped when one talks to a close friend. An appropriate
way to address a stranger will be Excuse me, could you tell me the time please?
Redressive formulas are rather useful when talking to our superiors and inferiors,
friends and strangers because it is not only the addressee’s face but the speaker’s
face too that may be threatened if we are not polite.
Politeness Strategies
Brown and Levinson state that there exists a system of strategies to deal with
face-threatening situations.
The easiest thing to do is (1) to do nothing at all – the addressee’s face is
saved but the speaker gains nothing, they do not get what they hope for. The
second best strategy (if the speaker wants to save the addressee’s face) is
ambiguity. The speaker chooses a linguistic form that allows more than one
interpretation thus pretending they try to hide their real intention. Brown and
Levinson call this type of strategy (2) off-record politeness. Hinting at what one’s
real intentions are is a good example here. I’ve heard your mom is an excellent
cook may be regarded just as a compliment if the addressee does not feel like
inviting the speaker for dinner. So the speaker leaves it up to the addressee to
choose their next move – to say Thank you, she’ll be pleased to hear it or Come
over for dinner tonight. In this way, the threat to the addressee’s face is minimized.
A more direct way to perform a face-threatening act is (3) to do it on-record, i.e.
without any pretence. In this case, the speaker has three optional strategies: (3.1.) if
their need is strong, a request may be presented directly, without any redress; for
example, Help me! But such a straight way threatens the addressee’s negative face.
So the speaker may employ either (3.2.) positive politeness strategies or (3.3.)
negative politeness strategies. In one of the episodws described above, the speaker
made a bad impression just because he used the form of command (You must help
me) instead of the form of request. Had he said You must be very busy (positive
politeness redress) but could you please spare me a minute? (negative politeness
redress), his chances of the desired result would have been higher.
According to Brown and Levinson, there is a wide range of positive and
negative politeness strategies. The speakers may try to achieve their aim by paying
attention to the addressee, showing interest in the addressee’s actions or ideas,
expressing approval, seeking compromise and common ground, etc. (positive
politeness strategies). Minimizing interference can be achieved through being
indirect, apologizing, using deferential forms, impersonalization (It’s better to stop
talking instead of You should stop talking), etc. (negative politeness strategies).
Though it is the addressee’s face that gets most attention, we should not
forget that the speaker’s face may be threatened too. The research on the speaker’s
face carried out by Sviatoslav Gulko and me shows that the speaker might lose
their face
 ignoring the principle of co-operation between the speakers:
• telling a lie or what is untrue,
• talking too much,
• being irrelevant,
• being unclear, ambiguous, inconsistent;
 breaching etiquette by
• insulting, humiliating the addressee,
• monopolizing a conversation,
• trying to ‘shut up’ the addressee,
• losing control over themselves (cursing, shouting, etc.),
• demonstrating power (threatening);
 trying to change their status in interpersonal interactions by
• diminishing their own importance,
• being apologetic,
• boasting,
• refusing to recognize their mistakes.
The list is incomplete, of course. Trying to avoid things like telling a lie,
monopolizing a conversation, being too apologetic or boastful, etc., the speaker
may save their face.
Check Your Understanding
Questions
1. What is the difference between politeness as an accepted norm of behaviour and
linguistic politeness?
2. What is imposition from a pragmatic perspective? How can imposition pose
problems for the addressee?
3. How can you interpret the expressions social distance and power relationship?
4. What is face in terms of pragmatics?
5. What is positive face? negative face?
6. What are redressive expressions/actions?
7. How can you interpret the expressions face threatening act/situation, lose face,
save face?
8. What speech acts may threaten the addressee’s positive and negative face?
9. What are the three main types of strategies to deal with face-threatening
situations?
10. How can the speaker’s face be threatened?