Ways of speaking in different countries are conditioned by different cultural norms. These norms are largely constrained by different politeness concerns. It has been claimed by previous studies that western and Chinese politeness theories are greatly different (e.g., Gu, 1990; Mao, 1994; Yu, 2003, 2005b). This section first reviews Brown and Levinson’s (1978, 1987) politeness theory and Chinese politeness theory respectively. Then the cross-cultural differences between these two types of politeness theories are discussed.
2.2.1 Brown and Levinson’s Politeness Theory
Many models of politeness have been proposed in the literature (e.g., Brown &
Levinson, 1978, 1987; Fraser, 1990; Lakoff, 1975; Leech, 1983; Watts, 2003). Among them, Brown and Levinson’s model has been testified in cross-cultural politeness behaviors and retains “pancultural validity” (Yu, 2003, p.1680) although it has also been criticized by many scholars in terms of its anchoring Anglo-Western cultures (Gu, 1990; Janney & Arndt, 1993; Jung, 2002; Lii-Shih, 1994; Lin, 2005; Mao, 1994;
Watts, 2003; Yu, 1999, 2003).
Brown and Levinson’s (1978, 1987) model of politeness was based on Goffman’s (1967) notion of face. They defined ‘face’ as “the public self-image that every member wants to claim for himself” (Brown & Levinson, 1987, p. 61) and further divided face into two types: negative face and positive face. Negative face refers to the wants of freedom from others’ imposition, freedom from impediment, and rights not to be distracted. Positive face refers to the wants of being approved and appreciated in public. Although the content of face might differ from one culture to another, the wants of public face and self-image were assumed to be universal in communication.
When performing speech acts, we often threaten interlocutors’ face. As Scollon and Scollon (1981) pointed out, any speech act may threaten interactants’ public image.
In order to perform face-threatening acts (FTAs) appropriately, Brown and Levinson (1987) outlined five possible strategies for doing FTA (see Figure 2.1 below). The first three main strategies are on-record strategies, in which speakers’ intentions are explicitly expressed. The first one is to do an act baldly without redressive action. The other two are both with redressive action that gives face to the hearers, but they differ from each other according to the aspect of face being emphasized. One is positive politeness, which concerns the hearers’ positive face to be attended to. The other is negative politeness, which concerns the hearers’ negative face to be unimpeded, the maintenance of interlocutors’ self-determination, and claims of territory. The fourth strategy to do an FTA is an off-record strategy, in which speakers’ attributive intention is not explicitly expressed and the hearers have to infer the meaning from the discourse context. The fifth strategy is not to do the FTA (i.e., ‘opting out’, cf. Bonikowska, 1988).
Although Brown and Levinson’s (1987) model is widely cited and applied, it is also criticized for its claim of universality of face. Detailed criticisms of Brown and Levinson’s model will be discussed in section 2.2.3, after the review of studies on the Chinese concept of face and politeness in section 2.2.2.
1. without redressive action, baldly on record
2. positive politeness Do the FTA with redressive action
3. negative politeness 4. off record
5. Don’t do the FTA
Figure 2.1 Possible strategies for doing FTA (Brown & Levinson, 1987, p. 69)
2.2.2 Chinese Face and Politeness
This section will address two important notions, Chinese face (cf. Hu, 1944; Yu, 2003) and Chinese politeness (cf. Gu, 1990; Mao, 1994; Yu, 2003), which constitute Chinese politeness theory.
2.2.2.1 Chinese Face
Chinese face consists of two aspects: ‘面子miànzi’ and ‘臉 liăn’ (Hu, 1944). ‘面子 miànzi’ is related to personal prestige or dignity; ‘臉 liăn’ is related to individuals’
judgment or moral behavior having to be recognized and approved of by their community (Yu, 2003). ‘面子miànzi’ seems to bear some resemblance with Brown and Levinson’s negative face, and ‘臉 liăn’ with positive face. However, after a deeper analysis of the two components of Chinese face, Yu (2003) suggests that Chinese face focuses less on negative face, and a great difference exists between ‘臉 liăn’ and positive politeness:
“while ‘臉 liăn’ encodes a moral overtone regarding the speaker’s everyday behavior, positive face does not” (p. 1697). Furthermore, Chinese greatly emphasize the importance of positive politeness to show their mutual care and interdependence (Lii-Shih, 1994, 1996) for Chinese are collectivism-oriented (Hofstede, 1980, 1991; M. Chen, 2006).
Chinese positive politeness includes “not just the acts showing solidarity or asserting common ground but any speech acts that can give or satisfy the addressee’s face wants in the given situation” (Lii-Shih, 1994, p. 132). Therefore, the value of positive politeness frequently influences Chinese verbal behaviors.
2.2.2.2 Chinese Politeness
The closest Chinese equivalent for the word ‘politeness’ in English is ‘禮貌 lĭmào’, which originates from the Chinese word lĭ 禮 and literally refers to politeness appearance (Gu, 1990). In early Chinese Confucianism (around 500 B.C.), lĭ does not
mean politeness but refers to the hierarchical and slavery system in the Zhou Dynasty society (dating back to 1100 B.C.). It was not until the West Han Dynasty (206 B.C.—
9 A.D.) that lĭ, in the book of 禮記 Lĭ Jì compiled by Dai Sheng, denotes being polite and showing respect to others. The connection between the social hierarchy of lĭ and politeness of lĭ is that the former contributes to the latter, and the latter facilitates the maintenance of lĭ, i.e., social order and hierarchy. Gu (1990) suggested that politeness in Chinese has two purposes: to foster social harmony and to decrease interpersonal tension, and ‘禮貌 lĭmào’ implies four notions: refinement, attitudinal warmth, modesty, and respectfulness. Relating face to politeness, Mao (1994) contended that to be polite in Chinese is to understand how to pay attention to interlocutors’ miànzi and liăn’ when performing speech acts.
2.2.3 Cross-cultural Differences in Politeness
The differences between Brown and Levinson’s politeness theory and Chinese concept of face and politeness consist in two aspects: the locus of face and the status of concepts (Yu, 2003). As for the locus of face, face in Brown and Levinson’s model focuses on politeness addressed to individuals’ desire and expectations, and it is more individualism oriented. However, Chinese focus on politeness addressed to the social expectation. Therefore, Chinese face is more collectivism oriented (see Mao, 1994, and Gu, 1990, for a similar discussion on the differences between politeness in Chinese and Brown and Levinson’s model). As for the status of concepts, Watts, Ide, and Ehlich (1992) distinguished two types of politeness: first-order politeness and second-order politeness. First-order politeness refers to the commonsense of politeness that is widely talked about and recognized by socio-cultural group members. On the other hand, second-order politeness does not refer to the common notions widely perceived by members of socio-cultural groups but it is a theoretical
concept used in the field of sociolinguistics and studies on social behavior. Chinese politeness is important for and rooted in Chinese daily life. Thus it belongs to first-order politeness. However, politeness in Brown and Levinson’s model is mainly a theoretical construct used by researchers but not by most members of socio-cultural groups. Therefore, it belongs to second-order politeness (Watts et al., 1992; Yu, 2003).
In brief, from the discussion of cross-cultural differences in politeness, it can be seen that Brown and Levinson’s politeness model does not apply to Chinese culture (Janney & Arndt, 1993; Jung, 2002; Lii-Shih, 1994; Mao, 1994; Yu, 2003). Although politeness might be universal in some aspects, what is regarded as being polite is culture-specific and language specific (Gu, 1990), and the cross-cultural differences have to do with cultural ethos and ways of speaking (Yu, 2003, 2005b). In this way, to know the cross-cultural differences in the way of speaking is important to foster second/foreign language learners’ communicative competence.