The stances on politeness are borderline frames on grounds of social-criterion, conversational-maxim, face-saving and gender-difference with minor discrimination.
The subsequent sections will discuss the doctrines of Grice (1975), Fraser (1990), Leech (1983), Brown & Levinson (1987), Lakoff (1973) and Holmes (1995) and present relative juxtaposition.
2.2.1 Grice (1975); Fraser (1990)
Grice (1975, p.24) assumes that “speakers can mean more than they say”, signifying a particular context of utterance bears conversational implicature,
thereupon introducing Cooperative Principle (CP), constituting redressive action and involving the four conversational maxims: “the maxims of Quantity, Quality, Relation and Manner”, formulated as follows (1975, p.45):
Maxim of Quantity - Make your contribution as informative as is required (for the purpose of the exchange)
- Do not make your contribution more informative than is required.
Maxim of Quality - Do not say what you believe to be false.
- Do not say that for which you lack adequate evidence.
Maxim of Relation - Be relevant.
Maxim of Manner - Avoid obscurity of expression.
- Avoid ambiguity.
- Be brief.
- Be orderly.
Fraser (1990) also posits the tactic of politeness from a conversational-contract view, espousing Grice’s (1967&1975) proposition of a Cooperative Principle and Goffman’s (1967) conception of face, poles apart from Brown &Levinson’s (1987) claim. She contends that the convention and details of circumstances between interactants may display the conditions of a conversational contract to which politeness is seen typically affixed. Besides, the intention to be deferential is not marked since the courtesy is a distinguishing trait of complying by the CP and the CC.
2.2.2 Leech (1983)
Leech (1983, p.104) puts forward the interconnection between sense and force that “an utterance requires different kinds and degrees of politeness” in agreement of the social goal and comity maintenance, introducing four types of illocutionary functions:
(a) COMPETITIVE: to compete with the social goal; e.g. ordering, asking,
demanding, begging.
(b) CONVIVIAL: to coincide with the social goal; e.g. offering, inviting, greeting, thanking, congratulating.
(c) COLLABORATIVE: be indifferent to the social goal; e.g. asserting, reporting, announcing, instructing.
(d) CONFLICTIVE: to have conflicts with the social goal; e.g. threatening, accusing, cursing, reprimanding.
Moreover, there are three scales apt for the extent of tact germane to a given speech situation (1983, p.123): “the COST-BENEFIT SCALE, the OPTIONALITY SCALE and The INDIRECTNESS SCALE.
Leech (1983) further propounds an independent model of politeness strategies from a cross-cultural perspective. As regards “a maxim maximizing the benefit and limiting the cost to the addressee”, he collates a maxim of tact with “maxims of generosity, modesty, approbation, agreement and sympathy”. The Tact Maxim is true of Searle (1969)’s Directive (negative politeness) and Commissive (positive
politeness) categories of illocutions, a negative side “Minimize the cost to h”, and a positive side, “Maximize the benefit to h”. On this basis, X may be placed on a COST-BENEFIT scale (1983, p.107).
Considering “the politeness concerns a relationship between two participants
whom to be called ‘self’ and ‘other’”, Leech adopts the position of rhetorical pragmatics suggesting six interpersonal maxims of the PP (1983, p.132) and each maxim has a set of scales:
(I) TACT MAXIM in impositives and commissives
a. Minimize cost to other [b.Maximize benefit to other]
(II) GENEROSITY MAXIM a. Minimize benefit to self
(IV) MODESTY MAXIM a.Minimize praise of self
[(b) Maximize dispraise of self]
(V) AGREEMENT MAXIM in assertives a.Minimize disagreement between self and other [(b)Maximize agreement between self and other]
(VI) SYMPATHY MAXIM a. Minimize antipathy
between self and other [b. Maximize sympathy between self and other]
2.2.3 Brown & Levinson (1987)
The linguistic work correlating strongly with universals and cultural particulars has been a kernel of issue. In favor of the importance of politeness is universal in language usages, “Face Threatening Acts (FTAs) was postulated pivoting on an abstract concept of ‘face’ that refers to individuals’ self-esteem” by Brown &
Levinson (1987, p.13). “’Face’ is something that is emotionally invested, and can be
lost, maintained, or enhanced, and must be constantly attended to in interaction.”
Usually people cooperate in maintaining face in interaction, such cooperation being based on the mutual vulnerability of face. Notwithstanding the substantiation that content of face will differ in different cultures, Brown & Levinson (1987, p.62) are assuming that “the mutual knowledge of members’ public self-image or face, and the social necessity to orient oneself to it in interaction, are universal” that the aspects of face are seen as basic wants.
Different from Speech Act Theory that is a sentence-based and speaker-oriented mode of analysis, FTAs is not necessarily realized in sentence-like units. The
methodology of eliciting data has to be a naturally occurring and intuitive amalgam.
Insomuch as an FTA is “a function of the social relation between the speaker and the addressee, the intrinsic face-threatening content of the FTA and the influence of other factors, especially the presence of third parties”, as well as three particular
sociological factors in determining the level of politeness which a speaker (S) will use to an addressee (H) (1987, p.74): “the relative power (P) of H over S, the social distance (D) between S and H, and the ranking of the imposition (R)”. Concerning major strategies of politeness in the relationship between the speaker and the addressee in particular, Positive politeness (the desire to be approved of), Negative politeness (the desire to be unimpeded in one’s action) and Off-record whose use are
dependent on culturally specific social determinants. For example, in addition to the liking factor, which is an independent variable affecting choice of politeness strategy, the situational formality can enter the context-variability of P, D, R assessments varying with cross-cultural effects.
2.2.4 Lakoff (1973); Holmes (1995)
Lakoff (1973) and Holmes (1995) both point out gender differences in language usages. They can be ascribed to biological and psychological rationales. Lakoff (1973)’s research reveals that women have the peculiar lexical and syntactic forms of expression, inclusive of avoidance of strong expression of feeling, expression of uncertainty. She further gives an account of women’s euphemism due to their sexual nature, and the identity of women as marginal social roles that are derivative and reliant against men.
Holmes’ work substantiates Lakoff’s perspective. Similarly, she found that
women’s (1995, pp.6-7) specific pattern includes positive politeness and have liability to make connections, seek involvement and focus on the interdependencies. However, men dwell on autonomy and detachment, pursuing independence and stressing
hierarchical relationships. Additionally, the effect of socialization on gender-based varieties in patterns of language use are culturally dissimilar. In modern western societies, for instance, the boys are control-orientated, interacting more competitively,
but the girls tend toward collaboration, preferring closeness. Finally, yet importantly, gender-specific linguistic behaviors (1995, p.8) are attributable to the contrasting distribution of power in society. Male as norm is customarily predominant, implying that women, powerless members of a subordinate group in society, are presumably more linguistically polite.