Politeness 8

“Politeness” is a basic principle observed in daily life. It denotes the notion that interpersonal interactions should observe the social norms of the society. Politeness is often the theme or even guidelines for the studies on cross-cultural communication. It is certainly important for the study of pragmatics across cultures (Brown & Levinson 1978, 1987; Blum-Kulka, 1982;

Blum-Kulka & Olshtain, 1984; Fraser, 1980; Gu, 1990; Holmes, 1993; House & Kasper, 1981;

Janney & Arndt, 1993; Leech, 1983). It is said to be the main factor governing human interactions and “fundamental to human relationships” (Bharuthram, 2003: 1531).

Though Brown & Levinson (1978) and Leech (1983) have originally put forth the politeness theory as a “universal” concept, many cross-cultural researches have shown a lack of

consistency on politeness perceptions and performances across cultures (Blum-Kulka, House &

Kasper, 1989; Fraser, 1990; Gu, 1990; Mao, 1994; Sugimoto, 1998; Trosborg, 1987, 1995).

Most of the inconsistency were found in cross-cultural researches. It may be necessary to look at how people of different cultures view the concept of politeness. Eastern vs. western cultural differences were the mostly discussed themes (Gudykunst, 2003; Hofstede, 1997). The following presents the concepts of western and eastern politeness.

2.1.1 Western Politeness

The most famous western politeness system is the Brown & Levinson’s (1978) Politeness Theory. Borrowing from Goffman’s (1967) face work, Brown & Levinson (1987) tried to account for deviations from Grice’s (1975) Cooperative Principle and its’ four Conversational Maxims. Politeness strategies are adopted by speakers to maintain or achieve politeness intentions among speakers.

Following Goffman’s (1956, 1967) categorization of politeness system, Brown &

Levinson (1987) identified positive politeness and negative politeness. Positive politeness is warm friendly behavior toward others, which is designed to meet the face needs for another person. Negative politeness is the avoidance of imposition on others, which is designed to protect the other person’s face when the negative face needs are threatened (Brown & Levinson, 1987).

According to Brown & Levinson (1987), all speech acts are potentially face-threatening acts and politeness strategies in speech involve attempts to minimize the face-threat generated during interactions. Brown & Levinson’s (1987) model is presented as follows: (Fig. 2.1)

F a c e t h r e a t e n i n g a c t s ( F T A )

The five strategies above are briefly explained inside the figure (Figure 1). For example, when someone is seeking the right politeness strategies, she/he will consider whether she/he wants to perform the act (do the FTA) or not (do not do the FTA). If yes, she/he will either choose to be speaking clearly (1, 2 &3) or ambiguously (4). When speaking clearly, she/he will have to be either “bold” (1) or “redressive” (2 &3), which means either with positive politeness or negative politeness.

Though this is a western model, it is applicable to other cultures. Olshtian & Cohen (1989) reviewed speech act behavior across different languages and concluded that Brown &

Levinson’s (1978) politeness taxonomy would appear to contribute to cross-linguistic studies by helping to characterize different cultures (Olshtian & Cohen, 1989). However, Gu (1990, 1992) and Mao (1994) suggested the need to introduce eastern politeness.

2.1.2 Eastern Politeness

challenged when the system is applied to other cultures, especially eastern cultures (Gries &

Peng, 2002; Gu, 1990; Hill et al., 1986; Ide, 1989, Ide et al., 1992; Matsumoto, 1988; Mao, 1994; Spencer-Oatey, 2000). Gu (1990) said that politeness may indeed be a universal phenomenon, i.e. it is found in every culture, however, what counts as polite behavior is cultural-specific and language specific. Therefore, Gu (1992) suggested the need in extending on Brown & Levinson’s (1987) Politeness Theory. This study presents two politeness notions that wish to explain phenomena which Brown & Levinson’s Politeness theory (1987) could not fully explain (Gu, 1990, 1992; Mao, 1994). One of the notions is Gu’s (1990) concepts of Chinese lĭmào and the other is Mao’s (1994) discussion on face.

2.1.2.1 Gu

Gu (1990, 1992) investigated the modern concept and historical origin of politeness in China and compared them to western notions of face and politeness. According to Gu (1990: 239), the following four maxims may be more suitable to explain Chinese or eastern values of politeness ( lĭmào ).

Four notions of Chinese lĭmào: (excerpted from Gu, 1990: 239):

1. Respectfulness: positive appreciation or admiration of other concerning the other’s face, social status and so on.

2. Modesty: self-denigration.

3. Attitudinal warmth: demonstration of kindness, consideration and hospitality to other.

4. Refinement: self’s behavior to other which meets certain standards.

Gu (1990) noted that “denigrating self and respecting other remain at the core of the modern conception of lĭmào” (Gu, 1990: 238). He also pointed out that the two cardinal principles of lĭmào are sincerity and balance (Gu, 1990). In Chinese society, polite behavior must be enacted sincerely and that sincerity calls for similar polite behavior in return called

huánlĭ (to return politeness) (Gu, 1990). That is to say, that Chinese concept of face emphasizes the balance between self and others in social relationships, which is different from Brown &

Levinson’s (1987) notion of face that focuses on the face of the individual.

2.1.2.2 Mao

In contrast to Brown & Levinson’s (1987) face-saving model, Mao (1994) proposed “the relative face orientation construct”. The construct, as Mao (1994: 484) stated, is “based on the assumption that face is a public image that every individual member wishes to claim for him-or herself” and “such an image embodies an underlying direction that either emulates an ideal social identity or aspires toward an ideal individual autonomy”, which shapes the content of face in Chinese or eastern community. In sum, Mao (1994) considered western politeness oriented towards “ideal individual autonomy” while eastern politeness towards the “ideal social identity”.

It is obvious that both Gu (1990) and Mao (1994) pointed out the differences between

“individualistic” characteristic in western politeness theories and the “public” or “collective”

value in eastern politeness. The contrastive eastern and western politeness concepts govern the speech act behaviors of the people cultivated under the two different cultures.