Languages & Linguistics
Politeness Theory
Politeness Theory, developed by sociolinguists Penelope Brown and Stephen Levinson, explores how individuals use language to maintain social harmony and avoid conflict. It emphasizes the role of politeness strategies in communication, such as using indirect speech acts or mitigating language to show respect and consideration for others. The theory is influential in understanding the cultural and social aspects of language use.
Written by Perlego with AI-assistance
Related key terms
1 of 5
11 Key excerpts on "Politeness Theory"
eBook - ePubA Critique of Politeness Theory
Volume 1
- Gino Eelen(Author)
- 2014(Publication Date)
- Routledge(Publisher)
Chapter 1: Theories of politenessWithin the Anglo-Saxon scientific tradition, politeness research is carried out from the perspective of linguistic pragmatics and sociolinguistics. All theories considered here agree they belong to either of these linguistic subfields, the consensus deriving from the fact that politeness has to do with language, and more specifically language use – which warrants its classification within pragmatics – and that it is a phenomenon which connects language with the social world – which warrants the ‘socio-’ prefix. So although the pragmatic and sociolinguistic perspectives can to a greater or lesser degree be distinguished from one another depending on their exact definition and delimitation, for the present discussion they unite the field of Politeness Theory, in that politeness is invariably seen as a phenomenon connected with (the relationship between) language and social reality.Beyond this general level, however, agreement is much harder to find, as each theory more or less has its own (private) definition of politeness. In fact, the vast majority of publications on politeness contribute to some extent to theory formation on the subject. In order to reduce this mass of theoretical claims and innovations to manageable proportions, a selection has to be made. And it appears, in the light of the search for underlying linguistic and social ideologies, not all theoretical claims are equally important. On this basis, many theoretical amendments and innovations to existing theories can be excluded because the changes they propose do not touch the linguistic or social presuppositions of the existing theory on which they are based. Likewise, theories that are based on the same presuppositions as other theories can be left out. In such cases only the oldest or most widely known framework is retained. On the other hand, a theory that perhaps only tackles a small aspect of politeness but does so by introducing elements that significantly distinguish its social worldview from that of other (more encompassing) frameworks is retained in the final selection. So neither size nor renown were used as criteria in their own right, and therefore the term ‘theory’ must be taken in rather a broad sense, as it may refer to more or less elaborated models of politeness; that is to say, not all theories are equally well-developed, nor elaborated to the greatest possible detail.
eBook - PDF- Miriam A. Locher, Sage L. Graham, Miriam A. Locher, Sage L. Graham(Authors)
- 2010(Publication Date)
- De Gruyter Mouton(Publisher)
3. Linguistic Politeness Theory and its aftermath: Recent research trails Richard J. Watts Abstract This chapter surveys the development of Politeness Theory as one of the main areas of interpersonal pragmatics during the 1990s and the present decade. It begins with a critical assessment of Brown and Levinson (1978, 1987) and some of the major criticisms of their model in the early 1990s before dealing with some of the developments in politeness research in the light of this criticism. Particular atten-tion is given to the link between politeness and power, politeness and gender, pol-iteness and face, and politeness and culture, and more recent theoretical ap-proaches to politeness in the first decade of the current century are dealt with in some detail. 1. Introduction Theories of linguistic politeness, one of the major areas in interpersonal prag-matics, arose from relatively humble beginnings within linguistic pragmatics. They stem from a remark made by Grice (1975) to the effect that the conversational maxims (Quantity, Quality, Relation and Manner) in “Logic and conversation” are not the only ones that need to be considered in a model of utterer’s meaning. One of the additional maxims that Grice tentatively envisaged in “Logic and conver-sation” was a “politeness” maxim. Grice’s distinction between what he chose to call “utterance meaning” and “speaker’s meaning” received very short shrift in a significant collection on se-mantics by Steinberg and Jacobovits in 1971. In fact, Grice’s ideas were taken up by some of the generative semanticists well before “Logic and conversation” ap-peared in print, which accounts for the fact that Robin Lakoff’s first articles on politeness date from 1973.
eBook - PDF- M. Placencia, Kenneth A. Loparo, Rosina Márquez Reiter(Authors)
- 2005(Publication Date)
- Palgrave Macmillan(Publisher)
4 Examining Linguistic Politeness Phenomena 4.0 Introduction The last twenty to thirty years have seen a proliferation of studies in linguistic politeness (Kasper, 1996). The increasing interest in this area has led some scholars to see politeness as a sub-discipline of pragmat- ics (Thomas, 1995). The English term 'polite' can be traced back to the fifteenth century. Etymologically, it derives from the late medieval Latin politus meaning 'smoothed' and 'accomplished'. In the seventeenth century, a polite person was defined as one of 'refined courteous manners' (Oxford English Dictionary of Etymology). This definition highlights the connection between politeness and the (expected) social conduct of the upper classes (Watts 1989; Watts et al., 1992; Kasper, 1994, 1996; Marquez Reiter, 2000; Eelen, 2001). Politeness is thus related to the cultivation of social manners and is associated with the consideration of reciprocal obligations and duties. Hence, polite behaviour is seen as a way of maintaining the equilibrium of interpersonal relationships (Haverkate, 1994; Marquez Reiter, 2000). Politeness is, therefore, a form of social interaction and despite being expressed by a speaker (s) in relation to a hearer (h), the act of behav- ing (im) politely is based on a social model or standard that dictates whether the performed act can be deemed polite or impolite (Werk- hofer, 1992). This social model or standard is created and enacted by members of a particular community. From this it can be inferred that different communities may in fact have different social standards for interpreting what is polite and what is impolite behaviour. As Haverkate (1987) explains, politeness can be expressed through communicative and non-communicative acts. This chapter will focus 143
- S. Song(Author)
- 2012(Publication Date)
- Palgrave Macmillan(Publisher)
In other words, politeness is a form of social interaction which operates on the basis of shared rules or standards by the members of a society. Theories of Politeness 19 Lakoff (1990) defines the concept of ‘rules’ as ‘individual’s embodi- ment of the strategies each culture adopts as its dominant mode’. Over time, these shared assumptions gets internalized in people’s behav- ior, settling down as prevailing pragmatic rules. Without these shared cultural assumptions, individuals may insult or confuse each other. According to Eelen (2001), all members of the same culture or society tend to share the knowledge of the rules, maxims, and scripts. Lakoff (1990) argues that these kinds of rules are processed without speakers consciousness that they are being engraved into their minds. Terkourafi (2005) also claims that politeness emerges as a reflex of shared and social rationality. According to him (2005, p. 110), politeness is an appropriate response to a frame, that is, a ‘data-structure for represent- ing a stereotyped situation’. In other words, politeness is rule-governed and functional in speech acts. Politeness theories Previous studies on politeness can be categorized into three groups: the conversational-maxim perspective, the face-saving view, and the social norm theory. The first two groups of politeness theories consider polite- ness phenomena as universal rationality – universal rules and standards – within linguistic pragmatics, which started from a Grecian speech-act theoretic perspective. According to these perspectives, the speaker’s intention receives first priority, which is more or less the same regard- less of culture. In the first generation of theoretical studies concerning politeness, the conversational-maxim view is also referred to as the traditional view (Terkourafi, 2005).
eBook - PDF- Andreas H. Jucker, Irma Taavitsainen, Andreas H. Jucker, Irma Taavitsainen(Authors)
- 2010(Publication Date)
- De Gruyter Mouton(Publisher)
2. What is politeness? On the contemporary theoretical background As studies on premodern data show, historical (im)politeness research has been relatively successfully built on modern politeness models and theories. Instead of an in-depth examination of well-known theories, like Brown and Levinson’s (1978, 1987) or Watts’s (2003) models, I will discuss here some of the basic pol-iteness issues that have been the cause of debate over the past two decades. Since issues concerning polite language use, power, distance and positive/negative pol-iteness are increasingly recurrent themes in historical pragmatics as well, I will concentrate more closely on some facts about these topics in this section. Politeness 421 2.1. Definition of politeness The discussion around the concept of politeness itself has been going on for more than two decades. One of the most debated definitions of what constitutes polite language use is, of course, that discussed in Brown and Levinson’s theory. But, as Meier (1995), for one, notes, although Brown and Levinson have formulated a the-ory of politeness, the term is never actually defined in their book. Instead, they focus on describing politeness via accounts of negative and positive politeness strategies. To them, understanding how people use language in a strategic, mean-ingful way requires reconstructing speakers’ communicative intentions and the logic behind their linguistic choices (Brown and Levinson 1987: 8). This strategicness of politeness to redress face threats has been opposed by a number of scholars, mainly because it is said to describe politeness as a “linguistic gambit” instead of seeing politeness as the basis for all interaction and language use (Sell 1992: 114; Diamond 1996: 146). Therefore, there have been claims that we should abandon the word “politeness” altogether, since it connotates politeness as a moral or psychological element (e.g. Thomas 1995: 178–179).
eBook - PDF- J.L. Mey(Author)
- 2009(Publication Date)
- Elsevier Science(Publisher)
We can, however, note the ways in which people use language to express concern for others’ needs and feelings, and the ways that their expressions are interpreted. Linguistic politeness is thus a matter of strategic interaction aimed at achieving goals such as avoiding conflict and maintaining harmonious relations with others (Kasper, 1990). Different cultures have different ways of expressing consideration for others, and the most influential work in the area of linguistic politeness, namely Brown and Levinson’s Politeness Theory (1978, 1987), adopts a definition of politeness that attempts to encompass the ways politeness is expressed universally. This involves a conception of politeness that includes not only the considerate and nonimposing behavior illustrated in example 2, which they label ‘negative politeness’ (Brown and Levinson, 1987: 129), but also the posi-tively friendly behavior illustrated in example 3. (see also Lakoff, 1975, 1979). (3) Context: Small talk between workers in a plant nursery at the start of the day. Des is the manager. Ros is the plant nursery worker. Des: be a nice day when it all warms up a bit though Ros: yeah þ it’s okay Des: so you haven’t done anything all week eh you haven’t done anything exciting Politeness Strategies as Linguistic Variables 711 This is classic social talk: the content is not impor-tant; the talk is primarily social or affective in func-tion, designed to establish rapport and maintain good collegial relationships. Brown and Levinson (1987: 101) use the term ‘positive politeness’ for such posi-tive, outgoing behavior. Hence, their definition of politeness includes behavior which actively expresses concern for and interest in others, as well as nonim-posing distancing behavior. Linguistic politeness may therefore take the form of a compliment or an expres-sion of goodwill or camaraderie, or it may take the form of a mitigated or hedged request, or an apology for encroaching on someone’s time or space.
eBook - PDF- Luis Unceta Gómez, Łukasz Berger(Authors)
- 2022(Publication Date)
- Cambridge University Press(Publisher)
Furthermore, the social iden- tity of the speaker, as well as the concepts of ‘face’, ‘power’ and ‘distance’, are no longer static, but dynamic dimensions. The scope of discursive analysis thus expands beyond speaker utterances to include how the addressee perceives and interprets politeness. Politeness in this view becomes a dynamic concept, always under negotiation in the course of conversation. Indeed, the very conception of politeness is subject to differing interpretations as to the polite value of an act or utterance, what Watts calls the ‘discursive struggle’: 16 Other scholars have proposed different labels, such as ‘relational practice’ (Holmes and Schnurr 2005) or ‘rapport management’ (Spencer-Oatey 2000, 2005). According to Spencer-Oatey (2000: 13), ‘rapport management (the management of harmony-disharmony among people) entails three main interconnected components: the management of face, the management of sociality rights and obligations, and the management of interactional goals’. 17 The work of these researchers draws on Bourdieu’s ‘Practice Theory’ (see, e.g. Bourdieu 1977). Im/Politeness Research in Ancient Greek and Latin 1 A theory of politeness should concern itself with the discursive struggle over politeness, i.e. over the ways in which (im)polite behavior is evaluated and commented on by lay members and not with ways in which social scientists lift the term ‘(im)politeness’ out of the realm of everyday discourse and elevate it to the status of a theoretical concept in what is frequently called Politeness Theory. (Watts 2003: 9) The focus, therefore, must necessarily be transferred to the qualitative analysis of specific encounters and to considering, not a whole society or culture, but the production and perception of individual speakers, or at most, of limited, well-defined groups, generally referred to as ‘communi- ties of practice’.
- Jonathan Culpeper, Michael Haugh, Dániel Z. Kádár, Jonathan Culpeper, Michael Haugh, Dániel Z. Kádár(Authors)
- 2017(Publication Date)
- Palgrave Macmillan(Publisher)
International Journal of Human Communication 13 (4): 607–688. Lakoff, R.T. 1973. The Logic of Politeness; or, Minding Your P’s and Q’s’. In Papers from the Ninth Regional Meeting of the Chicago Linguistic Society, ed. C. Corum, T. Cedric Smith-Stark, and A. Weiser, 292–305. Chicago: Chicago Linguistic Society. Lee, J., and S. Pinker. 2010. Rationales for Indirect Speech: The Theory of the Strategic Speaker. Psychological Review 117: 785–807. Leech, G.N. 1983. Principles of Pragmatics. London: Longman. ———. 2003. Towards an Anatomy of Politeness in Communication. International Journal of Pragmatics 14: 101–123. ———. 2007. Politeness: Is There an East-West Divide? Journal of Politeness Research: Language, Behaviour, Culture 3 (2): 167–206. ———. 2014. The Pragmatics of Politeness. Oxford: Oxford University Press. Levinson, S.C. 1981. The Essential Inadequacies of Speech act Models of Dialogue. In Possibilities and Limitations of Pragmatics: Proceedings of the Conference on Pragmatics, Urbino, July 8–14, 1979, ed. H. Parret, M. Sbisà, and J. Verscheuren, 473–492. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. 2 Pragmatic Approaches (Im)politeness 38 ———. 1983. Pragmatics. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. ———. 1992. Activity Types and Language. In Talk at Work: Interaction in Institutional Settings, ed. P. Drew and J. Heritage, 66–100. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. (Original work published 1979). ———. 2000. Presumptive Meanings: The Theory of Generalised Conversational Implicature. Cambridge, MA: M.I.T. Press. Lewis, D.K. 1969. Convention: A Philosophical Study. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press. Locher, M.A. 2006. Polite Behaviour Within Relational Work: The Discursive Approach to Politeness. Multilingua 25 (3): 249–267. Locher, M.A., and R.J. Watts. 2005. Politeness Theory and Relational Work. Journal of Politeness Research: Language, Behaviour, Culture 1 (1): 9–33. Matsumoto, Y. 1989. Politeness and Conversational Universals–Observations from Japanese.
eBook - PDF- F. Bargiela-Chiappini, D. Kádár, F. Bargiela-Chiappini, D. Kádár(Authors)
- 2010(Publication Date)
- Palgrave Macmillan(Publisher)
1 1 Introduction: Politeness Research In and Across Cultures Dániel Z. Kádár and Francesca Bargiela-Chiappini This volume includes essays on face and politeness in a wide range of cultures. While previous monographs on politeness have tended to concentrate on one or sometimes two languages, the present volume utilises data drawn from as many as nine languages, including some ‘key languages’ in politeness research such as English and Japanese, as well as some lesser-studied languages, such as Georgian. Before introducing the goals, methodology and contents of this col- lection, we will briefly discuss ways in which ‘culture’ is represented in contemporary politeness studies, in comparision with its theorisation in other fields (Lévi-Strauss 1955, Hodder 1982). This selective retro- spective will place the present volume in the context of current debates on politeness. 1. Introduction: politeness research and culture Many would argue that politeness research is an independent field in communication studies. Since the 1970s and the seminal publications by Robin T. Lakoff (1973, 1977) research on linguistic politeness has been of interest to many scholars in fields such as pragmatics, sociolinguistics, psycholinguistics, language philosophy and discourse analysis. During the past four decades, hundreds of papers and dozens of monographs have been published on both politeness and impoliteness (cf. Watts 2003). Now politeness research has its own dedicated journal ( Journal of Politeness Research, Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter) and there are annual conferences devoted to both politeness and impoliteness, while the Linguistic Politeness Research Group (LPRG) has a list of over 200 members worldwide. 1
- Francisco Yus(Author)
- 2011(Publication Date)
- John Benjamins Publishing Company(Publisher)
We cannot claim that politeness is permanent, unchanging, as there must be variations according to specifc parameters of social behaviour. Among others, the following should be highlighted: 1. Trans-culturaldiferences . People tend to think that the interactive features of the language that speakers use in their community are more or less the same as in other languages and cultures. However, several anthropological studies have concluded that speech in the world is divided into two well defned areas: the Western, on the one hand, including Europe, USA, etc., and the rest of the world, on the other. In addition to this initial division, within these two areas there are also abundant diferences. Tese local features include, of course, the exclusive, distinctive and specifc use of politeness. Tere are interesting studies of other cultures that reveal the existence of behaviour understood as polite that would not be valid for a Western culture. From these and other studies we can deduce that the idiosyncrasy of a commu-nity includes the specifcity of its politeness. Kasper (1990: 198) states that the linguistic encoding of politeness strategies is derived from the linguistic system and conventionalized rules of use, such as everyday formulas and idioms that tend to be specifc to the language. Terefore, we cannot expect formal or even functional equivalence with other languages. To this statement, we could add diferences which are not exclusively linguistic, but related to the way people conceptualize the world and the relationships between individuals within their community. 270 Cyberpragmatics Internet is particularly appropriate for an analysis of trans-cultural difer-ences in the use of politeness. Tis network of nodes allows multiple users from all over the world to interact asynchronously (e.g. e-mail) and synchronously (e.g. chat rooms). Tis entails making an efort to understand the idiosyncratic use of polite strategies for each speech community.
eBook - PDFFrom Speech Acts to Lay Understandings of Politeness
Multilingual and Multicultural Perspectives
- Eva Ogiermann, Pilar Garcés-Conejos Blitvich(Authors)
- 2019(Publication Date)
- Cambridge University Press(Publisher)
Politeness comes into operation through evaluative moments (Eelen, 2001) – the interactants’ assessments of interactional behaviour – and it is a key interpersonal, interactional phenomenon, because it helps people to build up and maintain interpersonal relationships. The operation of politeness involves valenced categories (i.e., the enactment of notions that count as attractive and trigger positive emotions). The interactants use valenced cat- egories as a benchmark for their production and evaluation of language and behaviour, and valence reflects the participants’ perceived moral order of an interactional context/event (i.e., their perceptions of ‘how things should be’ in a given situation; see the detailed discussion in Kádár, 2017). Politeness behaviour, and the evaluation of such behaviour, by default, follows regular- ities (Terkourafi, 2005; Garcés-Conejos Blitvich, 2010). Culture has been a central issue in politeness research, as cultural differ- ences tend to entail differences in the production and evaluation of politeness 1 Dániel Kádár would like to acknowledge the support of the MTA Lendület Research Grant (LP2017–5) for funding his time to deliver the research presented in this paper. Both authors are indebted to Pilar Garcés-Conejos Blitvich and Eva Ogiermann for their continuous support and constructive help in the course of revising the manuscript, and also to the anonymous referees for their constructive comments. There is perhaps no need to say that all remaining errors are our responsibility. Yongping Ran is indebted to the Key National Research Center for Linguistics and Applied Linguistics at Guangdong University of Foreign Studies, PR China. Yongping’s study has been supported by the Chinese Ministry of Education project (16JJD740007) dedi- cated to interpersonal pragmatics. 280
Index pages curate the most relevant extracts from our library of academic textbooks. They’ve been created using an in-house natural language model (NLM), each adding context and meaning to key research topics.
