According to Huang (2007), most of the world languages have three basic sentence types: declarative, interrogative and imperative. Typically, these sentence types are associated with three basic illocutionary forces. If the sentence type matches with an illocutionary force, there will be a direct speech act, as showed in (1).
(1) a. He washed the dishes. (declarative; assertion) b. Who washed the dishes? (interrogative: question) c. Do the dishes, please! (imperative: order/request)
On the other hand, we will be facing an indirect speech act if there is no direct link between a sentence type and an illocutionary force, as illustrated in (2).
(2) a. I want to know who washed the dishes. (declarative; question) I would like for you to wash the dishes. (declarative; order/request) b. Is the pope Catholic? (interrogative; assertion)
Can you wash the dishes? (interrogative; order/request) c. Why don’t you leave? (imperative; question)
In a direct speech act, the illocutionary force is explicitly named by a performative verb in the matrix clause while an indirect speech act does not explicitly include the performative verb, as in (3). The performance of an indirect speech act is related to politeness.
(3) a. I advised you to wash the dishes. (direct)
b. Washing dishes would be appreciated. (indirect)
The notion of “face” was first derived from Goffman (1967) and the public notion of
“losing face.” Later on, politeness was carefully examined in Brown and Levinson’s theory (1987). It is the notion of an individual’s positive and negative face, along with face-threatening acts (FTAs), and linguistic politeness strategies that formed Brown and Levinson’s model of politeness. According to Brown and Levinson, “face” is the public self-image that every member wants to claim for himself. “Face,” which is emotionally invested, and can be lost, maintained, or enhanced, and must be constantly attended to.
Generally speaking, it is every participant’s best interest to maintain each other’s face during an interaction.
The term “face” discussed in Brown and Levinson (1987) has two aspects. First, negative face is the basic claim to territories, personal preserves, rights to non-distraction – i.e. to freedom of action and freedom from imposition. Negative face is threatened when freedom of choice and action is impeded, and acts, which intrinsically threaten face, are FTAs. Advice is an emblematic example of negative FTAs along with requests and suggestions. However, positive face reflects the desire to have one’s self-image approved of by others. Request is an example that involves the work of positive face. When you are asking for a friend’s help, you will acknowledge the friend’s positive face by saying, “Since you are good at this area, I might benefit from your advice.”
Every social encounter requires face work, and it is inevitable that faces will be threatened during an interaction. People are then expected to defend their faces if threatened.
However, in defending their own faces, it is highly likely to threaten others’ faces. Hence,
politeness strategies are used as a means for accommodating the face needs of the individual by modifying potential threats to the hearer’s face so as to maintain each other’s face. Brown and Levinson (1987) outline four main types of politeness strategies: bald on-record, negative politeness, positive politeness, and off-record. A speaker chooses to use bald-on-record usage whenever he wants to do the FTA with maximum efficiency more than he wants to satisfy the hearer’s face (p.95). According to Brown and Levinson (1987), direct imperatives stand out as typical examples of bald-on-record usage. Next, positive politeness seeks to minimize the threat to the hearer’s positive face. They are used to express the speaker’s solidarity with, familiarity with, and acceptance of the hearer’s wants. Therefore, claiming common ground, being optimistic, and telling jokes are included in positive strategies. Negative politeness, on the contrary, is redressive action addressed to the hearer’s negative face: “his want to have his freedom of action unhindered and his attention unimpeded (p.129).” Questions and hedges are one of the negative strategies. Based on Grice’s Maxims, Brown and Levinson (1987) further propose a set of hedges oriented to Grice’s cooperative dimensions (as showed in Table 2-3): non-spuriousness (Quality); saying neither more nor less than is cooperatively necessary (Quantity); being ‘to the point’ (Relevance); and being perspicuous, neither vague nor ambiguous (Manner). Lastly, a communicative act is done off record if it is done in such a way that “it is not possible to attribute only one clear communicative intention to the act (p.211).” Off-record strategies include giving hints, understating, overstating, and using metaphors etc.
Table 2-3 Hedges Addressed to Grice’s Maxims (Brown & Levinson, 1987:164-171) topic changes as impositions on H’s face, such changes are often done off record.
This may not be relevant, but…
Now is probably the time to say…
Since I’ve been wondering…
By the way…
While I remember, …
manner hedges
The manner hedges are used to make sure whether H is
Additionally, Brown and Levinson (1987) state that there are some factors influencing the assessment of the seriousness of an FTA. First of all, there is a “social distance” between the speaker and the addressee. Second is the relative “power” of the addressee over the speaker. The last variable is the absolute ranking of imposition in a particular culture. With the three variables together, the strength of an FTA is measured. The amount of face work needed or the degree of politeness required to be worked out is considered the basis for FTAs.
Brown and Levinson (1987) provide a universally valid model of politeness. However, their theory does not address discourse behaviors in other non-Western cultures where the underlying interactional focus is centered not upon individualism but upon group identity (Mao, 1994). Politeness strategies and individual acts are said to vary from one language/culture to another (Hinkel, 1997; Huang, 2007). For example, offering, inviting, and promising in Chinese will not be considered as threatening the hearer’s negative face;
however, in American or European cultures, doing these acts will threaten a hearer’s negative face (Gu, 1990).
The notion of “face” in Chinese, literally translated into mianzi and lian, conveys a meaning of one’s good name, credit, and reputation, which originally appears in Chinese idioms like gei mianzi ‘to give face’ and mei mianzi ‘to lose face’. Mao (1994) states that
mianzi in Chinese culture is not an inalienable and God-given right, but a reputable image
earned through an interactional process. Goffman (1967) also highlights the importance of community because face in Chinese culture is “on loan… from society” (p.10). In addition, Chinese society is based on the Confucian and Taoist philosophical precepts, and mianzi advocates subordinating the individual to the group or the community, and regards self-cultivation as an act of communicating and sharing in an ever-expanding circle of human-relatedness (Mao, 1994; Tu, 1985). As a result, an FTA like giving advice can be a way of showing generosity, developing conversational rapport, and establishing group belonging in Chinese society (Hinkel, 1997). Advice, consequently, is seen as a socio-cultural strategy of interdependence (Hall & Ames, 1987).As mentioned above, there are three independent variables that have a systematic effect on the choice of politeness strategies (Brown & Levinson, 1987). The social distance (D) of
the speaker and hearer, the relative power (P) between them, and the absolute ranking (R) of the imposition in the particular culture. Each of them has an independent effect on the strategic choice of polite expressions. Among these variables, social distance is a prime characteristic of social roles, and politeness serves to adjust social distance (Goffman, 1955;
Stephan, Liberman, & Trope, 2010). In conversation, how politely a speaker chooses to address to the listeners reflects how close he feels to the listener. This politeness behavior also helps create or maintain the feeling of closeness between the speaker and the listener.
For instance, a speaker uses the more formal and polite form to the more colloquial phrase based on how a speaker views the social distance between the interlocutors and him. A speaker can choose a polite way of addressing to a colleague not only to reflect the relatively large interpersonal distance but also to increase the social distance between them (Stephan et al., 2010). Brown and Levinson (1987) point out that speakers use more polite language when addressing to high status than to equal or low status. In other words, politeness increases with social status, since higher status interlocutor often poses further social distance. As a result, how a speaker views the social distance influences the way he speaks.
In addition to social distance, gender is another factor influencing the way people speak.
According to Brown and Levinson (1987:251), women are more positively polite; that is, women’s speech is highly elaborated for positive politeness through the use of compliments.
On the contrary, men are bolder in their speech. Furthermore, women would apply more strategies than men. The differences between men and women lie in their diverse observation about talk and discussion. Maltz and Broker (1982) point out that while women talk to build up and keep up close connections, men perceive talk as a tool for conveying information and getting things accomplished. King and Holmes (2014) state that male embraces manly
techniques such as giving unmitigated directives, asking controlling questions, and challenging the statement of others in conversation. On the other hand, females draw up strategies like offsetting disagreement, hedging criticism, and lightening some speech acts with humor. Tannen (1990) utilizes the expression “rapport-talk” to describe the fact that women use language to establish closeness. Women believe that “talk is the glue that holds relationships together” (p.85), and that “negotiations for closeness in which people try to seek and give confirmation and support, and to reach consensus” (p.25). To women, a conversation is for a community, and each of them is an individual in a network of connection.